miracles and supernatural religion by james morris whiton, ph.d. (yale) _portentum non fit contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura_ --augustine new york the macmillan company london: macmillan & co., ltd. _all rights reserved_ copyright, , by the macmillan company. set up, electrotyped, and published may, . norwood press j. s. cushing & co.--berwick & smith co. norwood, mass., u.s.a. transcriber's note: minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. variant spellings have been retained. {=e} represents e with upper macron. to m. b. w. prefatory note while the present subject of discussion tempts to many an excursion into particulars, its treatment is restricted to general outlines, with an aim simply to clarify current ideas of miracle and the supernatural, so as to find firm holding ground for tenable positions in the present "drift period" of theology. the chief exception made to this general treatment is the discussion given to a class of miracles regarded with as much incredulity as any, yet as capable as any of being accredited as probably historical events--the raisings of the "dead." the insistence of some writers on the virgin birth and corporeal resurrection of jesus as essential to christianity has required brief discussion of these also, mainly with reference to the reasonableness of that demand. as to the latter miracle, it must be observed that in the biblical narratives taken as a whole, whichever of their discordant features one be disposed to emphasize, the psychical element clearly preponderates over the physical and material. j. m. w. new york, april , . contents page introductory the argument i the gradual narrowing of the miraculous element in the bible by recent discovery and discussion.--the alarm thereby excited in the church.--the fallacy which generates the fear.--the atheistic conception of nature which generates the fallacy.--the present outgrowing of this conception. ii the present net results of the discussion of the miraculous element in the bible.--evaporation of the former evidential value of miracles.--further insistence on this value a logical blunder.--the transfer of miracles from the artillery to the baggage of the church.--probability of a further reduction of the list of miracles.--also of a further transfer of events reputed miraculous to the domain of history. iii arbitrary criticism of the biblical narratives of the raising of the "dead."--facts which it ignores.--the subject related to the phenomena of trance, and records of premature burial.--the resuscitation in elisha's tomb probably historical.--jesus' raising of the ruler's daughter plainly such a case.--his raising of the widow's son probably such.--the hypothesis that his raising of lazarus may also have been such critically examined.--the record allows this supposition.--further considerations favoring it: . the supposition threatens no real interest of christianity.-- . enhances the character of the act as a work of mercy.-- . is independent of the belief of the witnesses of the act.-- . is coherent with the general conception of the healing works of jesus as wrought by a peculiar psychical power.--other cases.--the resurrection of jesus an event in a wholly different order of things.--the practical result of regarding these resuscitations as in the order of nature. iv a clearer conception of miracle approached.--works of jesus once reputed miraculous not so reputed now, since not now transcending as once the existing range of knowledge and power.--this transfer of the miraculous to the natural likely to continue.--no hard and fast line between the miraculous and the non-miraculous.--miracle a provisional word, its application narrowing in the enlarging mastery of the secrets of nature and of life. v biblical miracles the effluence of extraordinary lives.--life the world's magician and miracle-worker; its miracles now termed _prodigies_.--miracle the natural product of an extraordinary endowment of life.--life the ultimate reality.--what any man can achieve is conditioned by the psychical quality of his life.--nothing more natural, more supernatural, than life.--the derived life of the world filial to the self-existent life of god; "begotten, not made."--miracle as the product of life, the work of god. vi the question, old and new, now confronting theologians.--their recent retreat upon the minimum of miracle.--the present conflict of opinion in the church.--its turning-point reached in the antipodal turn-about in the treatment of miracles from the old to the new apologetics.--revision of the traditional idea of the supernatural required for theological readjustment. vii account to be made of the law of atrophy through disuse.--the virgin birth and the corporeal resurrection of jesus, the two miracles still insisted on as the irreducible minimum, affected by this law.--the vital truths of the incarnation and immortality independent of these miracles.--these truths now placed on higher ground in a truer conception of the supernatural.--the true supernatural is the spiritual, not the miraculous.--scepticism bred from the contrary view.--the miracle-narratives, while less evidential for religion, not unimportant for history.--psychical research a needed auxiliary for the scientific critic of these. viii the cardinal point in the present discussion the reality not of miracles, but of the supernatural.--fallacy of pointing to physical events as essential characteristics of supernatural revelation.--the character of a revelation determined not by its circumstances, but by its contents.--moral nature supernatural to physical.--nature a hierarchy of natures.--supernatural religion historically attested by the moral development it generates.--transfer of its distinctive note from moral ideals to physical marvels a costly error.--jesus' miracles _a_ revelation, of a type common with others before and after.--the unique revelation of jesus was in the higher realm of divine ideas and ideals.--these, while unrealized in human life, still exhibit the fact of a supernatural revelation.--the distinction of natural and supernatural belongs to the period of moral progress up to the spiritual maturity of man in the image of god.--the divine possibilities of humanity, imaged in jesus, revealed as our inheritance and our prize. introductory in a historical retrospect greater and more revolutionary changes are seen to have occurred during the nineteenth century than in any century preceding. in these changes no department of thought and activity has failed to share, and theological thought has been quite as much affected as scientific or ethical. especially remarkable is the changed front of christian theologians toward miracles, their distinctly lowered estimate of the significance of miracle, their antipodal reverse of the long established treatment of miracles. referring to this a british evangelical writer[ ] observes that "the intelligent believer of our own day, ... instead of accepting christianity on the ground of the miracles, accepts it in spite of the miracles. whether he admits these miracles, or rejects them, his attitude toward them is toward difficulties, not helps." by this diametrical change of christian thought a great amount of scepticism has already been antiquated. a once famous anti-christian book, _supernatural religion_, regarded as formidable thirty years ago, is now as much out of date for relevancy to present theological conditions as is the old smooth-bore cannon for naval warfare. that many, indeed, are still unaware of the change that has been experienced by the leaders of christian thought, no one acquainted with current discussions will deny; the fact is indubitable. it is reviewed in the following pages with the constructive purpose of redeeming the idea of supernatural religion from pernicious perversion, and of exhibiting it in its true spiritual significance. the once highly reputed calculations made to show how the earth's diurnal revolution could be imperceptibly stopped for joshua's convenience, and the contention that the mediterranean produced fish with gullets capable of giving passage to jonah, are now as dead as the chemical controversy about phlogiston. yet some sceptical controversialists are still so far from cultivating the acquaintance with recent thought which they recommend to christian theologians, as to persist in affirmations of amazing ignorance, _e.g._ "it is admitted that miracles alone can attest the reality of divine revelation."[ ] sponsors for this statement must now be sought among unlearned christians, or among a few scholars who survive as cultivators of the old-fashioned argument from the "evidences." even among these latter the tendency to minimize miracle is undeniably apparent in a reduction of the list classified as such, and still more in the brevity of the list insisted on for the attestation of christianity. a transitional state of mind is clearly evidenced by the present division and perplexity of christian thought concerning the christian miracles. many seem to regard further discussion as profitless, and are ready to shelve the subject. but this attitude of weariness is also transitional. there must be some thoroughfare to firm ground and clear vision. it must be found in agreement, first of all, on the real meaning of a term so variously and vaguely used as _miracle_. in the present imperfect state of knowledge it may be impossible to enucleate miracle, however defined, of all mystery. but even so will much be gained for clear thinking, if miracle can be reasonably related to the greater mystery which all accept, though none understand,--the mystery of _life_. this view of the dynamic relation of life to miracle[ ] is here suggested for what it may prove to be worth. the great and general change that transfigured theology during the nineteenth century was characteristically ethical. this, indeed, is the distinctive feature of the so-called new theology, in contrast with that which the protestant reformers inherited from st. augustine. god and man, faith, salvation and inspiration, redemption and atonement, judgment and retribution,--all these themes are now presented in orthodox pulpits far more conformably to ethical principles, though in degrees varying with educated intelligence, than was customary in the sermons of half a century ago. "one great source and spring of theological progress," says professor bowne, in his recent work on _theism_, "has been the need of finding a conception of god which the moral nature could accept. the necessity of moralizing theology has produced vast changes in that field; and the end is not yet." the ethical character of the theological change will perhaps be most obvious in the field of biblical study, to which the present subject belongs. the traditional solution of such moral difficulties in the old testament as commands, ostensibly divine, to massacre idolaters has been quite discarded. it is no longer the mode to say that deeds seemingly atrocious were not atrocious, because god commanded them. writers of orthodox repute now say that the _thus saith the lord_, with which samuel prefaced his order to exterminate the amalekites, must be understood subjectively, as an expression of the prophet's belief, not objectively, as a divine command communicated to him. this great change is a quite recent change. if a personal reference may be indulged, it is not twenty years since the present writer's published protest against "the anti-christian use of the bible in the sunday school,"[ ] the exhibition to children of some vestiges of heathen superstition embedded in the old testament narratives as true illustrations of god's ways toward men, drew forth from a religious journal a bitter editorial on "the old testament and its new enemies." but a great light has since dawned in that quarter. it is no longer deemed subversive of faith in a divine revelation to hold that the prophet gad was not infallible in regarding the plague which scourged jerusalem as sent to punish david's pride in his census of the nation. a significant fact is presented in the comparison of these two aspects of the theological change that has come to pass,--the growing importance of the ethical, and the dwindling importance of the miraculous in the religious thought of to-day. this may reassure those who fear whereto such change may grow. the inner significance of such a change is most auspicious. it portends the displacement of a false by the true conception of supernatural religion, and the removal thereby of a serious antagonism between science and christian theology, as well as of a serious hindrance of many thoughtful minds from an intelligent embrace of christianity. footnotes: [ ] professor w. t. adeney in the _hibbert journal_, january, , p. . [ ] see the recent new edition of _supernatural religion_, "carefully revised." [ ] for an earlier statement of this by the present writer, see a discourse on "miracle and life," in _new points to old texts_. london: james clarke & co., . new york: thomas whittaker. [ ] _the new englander_, september, . miracles and supernatural religion i i synopsis.--the gradual narrowing of the miraculous element in the bible by recent discovery and discussion.--the alarm thereby excited in the church.--the fallacy which generates the fear.--the atheistic conception of nature which generates the fallacy.--the present outgrowing of this conception. it is barely forty years since that beloved and fearless christian scholar, dean stanley, spoke thus of the miracles recorded of the prophet elisha: "his works stand alone in the bible in their likeness to the acts of mediæval saints. there alone in the sacred history the gulf between biblical and ecclesiastical miracles almost disappears."[ ] it required some courage to say as much as this then, while the storm of persecution was raging against bishop colenso for his critical work on the pentateuch. the evangelical clergymen in england and the united states then prepared to confess as much as this, with all that it obviously implies, could have been seated in a small room. but time has moved on, and the church, at least the scholars of the church, have moved with it. no scholar of more than narrowly local repute now hesitates to acknowledge the presence of a legendary element both in the old testament and in the new. while the extent of it is still undetermined, many specimens of it are recognized. it is agreed that the early narratives in genesis are of this character, and that it is marked in such stories as those of samson, elijah, and elisha. even the conservative revisers of the authorized version have eliminated from the fourth gospel the story of the angel at the pool of bethesda, and in their marginal notes on the third gospel have admitted a doubt concerning the historicity of the angel and the bloody sweat in gethsemane. furthermore, some events, recognized as historical, have been divested of the miraculous character once attributed to them,--the crossing of the red sea, for instance, by the hebrew host. a landslip in the thirteenth century a.d. has been noted as giving historical character to the story of the hebrew host under joshua's command crossing the jordan "on dry ground," but in a perfectly natural way. other classes of phenomena once regarded as miraculous have been transferred to the domain of natural processes by the investigations and discoveries that have been made in the field of psychical research. the forewarning which god is said to have given the prophet ahijah of the visit that the queen was about to pay him in disguise[ ] is now recognized as one of many cases of the mysterious natural function that we label as "telepathy." the transformations of unruly, vicious, and mentally disordered characters by hypnotic influence that have been effected at the salpêtrière in paris, and elsewhere, by physicians expert in psychical therapeutics are closely analogous to the cures wrought by jesus on some victims of "demoniac possession."[ ] the cases of apparition,[ ] also, which have been investigated and verified by the society for psychical research have laid a solid basis of fact for the biblical stories of angels, as at least, a class of phenomena to be regarded as by no means altogether legendary, but having their place among natural though mysterious occurrences. but this progressive paring down of the miraculous element in the bible has caused outcries of unfeigned alarm. christian scholars who have taken part in it are reproached as deserters to the camp of unbelief. they are accused of banishing god from his world, and of reducing the course of events to an order of agencies quite undivine. "miracle," writes one of these brethren,[ ] "is the personal intervention of god into the chain of cause and effect." but what does this mean, except that, when no miracles occur, god is not personally, _i.e._ actively, in the chain of natural causes and effects? as professor drummond says, "if god appears periodically, he disappears periodically." it is precisely this view of the subject that really banishes god from his world. those who thus define miracle regard miracles as having ceased at the end of the apostolic age in the first century. except, therefore, for the narrow range of human history that the bible covers in time and place, god has not been personally in the chain of natural causes and effects. thus close to an atheistic conception of nature does zeal for traditional orthodoxy unwittingly but really come. the first pages of the bible correct this error. "while the earth remaineth," so god is represented as assuring noah, "seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease." the presence of god in his world was thus to be evinced by his regular sustentation of its natural order, rather than by irregular occurrences, such as the deluge, in seeming contravention of it. to seek the evidence of divine activity in human affairs and to ground one's faith in a controlling providence in sporadic and cometary phenomena, rather than in the constant and cumulative signs of it to be seen in the majestic order of the starry skies, in the reign of intelligence throughout the cosmos, in the moral evolution of ancient savagery into modern philanthropy, in the historic manifestation throughout the centuries of a power not our own that works for the increase of righteousness, is a mode of thought which in our time is being steadily and surely outgrown. it is one of those "idols of the tribe" whose power alike over civilized and uncivilized men is broken less by argument than by the ascent of man to wider horizons of knowledge. it is for the gain of religion that it should be broken,--of the spiritual religion whose god is not a tradition, a reminiscence, but a living presence, inhabiting alike the clod and the star, the flower in the crannied wall and the life of man. so thinking of god the religious man may rightly say,[ ] "if it is more difficult to believe in miracles, it is less important. if the extraordinary manifestations of god recounted in ancient history appear less credible, the ordinary manifestations of god in current life appear more real. he is seen in american history not less than in hebrew history; in the life of to-day not less than in the life of long ago." footnotes: [ ] _lectures on the history of the jewish church_, vol. ii, p. , american edition. [ ] kings xiv. - . [ ] it is not intended to intimate that there is no such darker reality as a "possession" that is "demoniac" indeed. it cannot be reasonably pronounced superstitious to judge that there is some probability for that view. at any rate, it is certain that the problem is not to be settled by dogmatic pronouncement. it is certain, also, that the burden of proof rests on those who contend that there can be no such thing. on the other hand, it may be conceded that the cases recorded in the new testament do not seem to be of an essentially devilish kind. on the general subject of "possession" see f. w. h. myers's work on _human personality and survival after death_, vol. i. (longmans, green & co., new york and london.) professor william james half humorously remarks: "the time-honored phenomenon of diabolical possession is on the point of being admitted by the scientist as a fact, now that he has the name of hysterodemonopathy by which to apperceive it." _varieties of religious experience_, p. , note. [ ] see _dictionary of psychology_, art. "psychical research." [ ] dr. peloubet, _teachers' commentary on the acts_, . [ ] dr. lyman abbott in _the outlook_, february , . ii ii synopsis.--the present net results of the discussion of the miraculous element in the bible.--evaporation of the former evidential value of miracles.--further insistence on this value a logical blunder.--the transfer of miracles from the artillery to the baggage of the church.--probability of a further reduction of the list of miracles.--also of a further transfer of events reputed miraculous to the domain of history. the cultivation of scientific and historical studies during the last century, especially in its latter half, has deepened the conviction that "through the ages one increasing purpose runs;" has disposed a growing number of thoughtful minds to regard occasional signs and wonders, reported from ancient times, as far less evidential for the reasonableness of religious faith than the steady sustentation of the providential order and the moral progress of the world. fully convinced of this, we should now estimate, before proceeding further, the present net results of the discussion, so far as it has gone, of what is called the miraculous element in the bible. first, its former evidential value in proof of divine revelation is gone for the men of to-day. the believer in a divine revelation does not now, if he is wise, rest his case at all on the miracles connected with its original promulgation, as was the fashion not very long since. this for two reasons; chiefly this: that _the decisive criterion of any truth, ethical or physical, must be truth of the same kind_. ethical truth must be ethically attested. the moral and religious character of the revelation presents its credentials of worth in its history of the moral and religious renovations it has wrought both in individuals and in society. this is its proper and incontrovertible attestation, in need of no corroboration from whatever wonderful physical occurrences may have accompanied its first utterance. words of god are attested as such by the work of god which they effect. it may well be believed that those wonderful occurrences--the biblical name for which is "signs," or "powers," terms not carrying, like "miracles," the idea of something contra-natural[ ]--had an evidential value for those to whom the revelation originally came. in fact, they were appealed to by the bearers of the revelation as evidencing its divine origin by the mighty works of divine mercy which they wrought for sufferers from the evils of the world. but whatever their evidential value to the eye-witnesses at that remote day, it was of the inevitably volatile kind that exhales away like a perfume with lapse of time. historic doubts attack remote events, especially when of the extraordinary character which tempts the narrator to that magnifying of the marvellous which experience has found to be a constantly recurring human trait. it is simply impossible that the original evidential value of the "signs" accompanying the revelation should continue permanently unimpaired. to employ them now as "evidences of christianity," when the revelation has won on ethical grounds recognition of its divine character and can summon history to bear witness of its divine effects in the moral uplift of the world, is to imperil the christian argument by the preposterous logical blunder of attempting to prove the more certain by the less certain. a second net result consequent on the preceding may be described as the transference of miracles from the ordnance department to the quartermaster's department of the church. until recently they were actively used as part of its armament, none of which could be dispensed with. now they are carried as part of its baggage, _impedimenta_, from which everything superfluous must be removed. it is clearly seen that to retain all is to imperil the whole. that there are miracles and miracles is patent to minds that have learned to scan history more critically than when a scholar like john milton began his _history of england_ with the legend of the voyage of "brute the trojan." one may reasonably believe that jesus healed a case of violent insanity at gadara, and reasonably disbelieve that the fire of heaven was twice obedient to elijah's call to consume the military companies sent to arrest him. cultivated discernment does not now put all biblical miracles on a common level of credibility, any more than the historical work of herodotus and that of the late dr. gardiner. to defend them all is not to vindicate, but to discredit all alike. the elimination of the indefensible, the setting aside of the legendary, the transference of the supposedly miraculous to the order of natural powers and processes so far as vindicable ground for such critical treatment is discovered, is the only way to answer the first of all questions concerning the bible: how much of this is credible history? thus it is not only thoroughly reasonable, but is in the interest of a reasonable belief that divine agency is revealed rather by the upholding of the established order of nature than by any alleged interference therewith. with what god has established god never interferes. to allege his interference with his established order is virtually to deny his constant immanence therein, a failure to recognize the fundamental fact that "nature is spirit," as principal fairbairn has said, and all its processes and powers the various modes of the energizing of the divine will. a third net result now highly probable is a still further reduction of the list of reputed miracles. the critical process of discriminating the historical from the legendary, and the natural from the non-natural, is still so comparatively recent that it can hardly be supposed to have reached its limit. nor can it be stayed by any impeachment of it as hostile to christianity, whose grand argument appeals to its present ethical effects, not to ancient thaumaturgical accompaniments. there is, however, a considerable class of cases in which the advancing critical process is likely even to gain credibility for the biblical narrative in a point where it is now widely doubted--the resuscitations of the apparently dead. among all the biblical miracles none have more probably a secure historical basis. footnotes: [ ] the anglicized latin word, "miracle," indiscriminately used in the authorized version, denotes the superficial character of the act or event it is applied to, as producing wonder or amazement in the beholders. the terms commonly employed in the new testament (_s{=e}meion_, a sign; _dunamis_, power; less frequently _teras_, a portent) are of deeper significance, and connote the inner nature of the occurrence, either as requiring to be pondered for its meaning, or as the product of a new and peculiar energy. iii iii synopsis.--arbitrary criticism of the biblical narratives of the raising of the "dead."--facts which it ignores.--the subject related to the phenomena of trance, and records of premature burial.--the resuscitation in elisha's tomb probably historical.--jesus' raising of the ruler's daughter plainly a case of this kind.--his raising of the widow's son probably such.--the hypothesis that his raising of lazarus may also have been such critically examined.--the record allows this supposition.--further considerations favoring it: . the real interests of christianity secure.-- . the miracle as a work of mercy.-- . incompetency of the bystanders' opinion.-- . congruity with the general conception of the healing works of jesus, as wrought by a peculiar psychical power.--other cases.--the resurrection of jesus an event in a wholly different order of things.--the practical result of regarding these resuscitations as in the order of nature. of resuscitation from apparent death seven cases in all are recorded,--three in the old testament and four in the new. some critics arbitrarily reject all but one of these as legendary. thus oscar holzmann, in his recent _leben jesu_, treats the raising of the widow's son, and of lazarus. but he accepts the case of the ruler's daughter on the ground that jesus is reported as saying that it was not a case of real but only of apparent death,--"the child is not dead, but sleepeth." but for the preservation of this saving declaration in the record, this case also would have been classed with the others as unhistorical. and yet the admission of one clear case of simulated death, so like real death as to deceive all the onlookers but jesus, might reasonably check the critic with the suggestion that it may not have been a solitary case.[ ] the headlong assumption involved in the discrimination made between these two classes, viz. that in a case of apparent but unreal death the primitive tradition can be depended on to put the fact upon record, is in the highest degree arbitrary and unwarrantable. the scepticism which lightly contradicts the biblical narratives of the raising of the "dead" to life is seemingly ignorant of facts that go far to place these upon firm ground as historical occurrences. catalepsy, or the simulation of death by a trance, in which the body is sometimes cold and rigid, sensation gone, the heart still, is well known to medical men.[ ] in early times such a condition would inevitably have been regarded and treated as actual death, without the least suspicion that it was not so. even now, the dreadful mistake of so regarding it sometimes occurs. so cautious a journal as the london _spectator_ a few years ago expressed the belief that "a distinct percentage" of premature burials "occurs every year" in england. the proper line of critical approach to the study of the biblical narratives of the raising of the "dead" is through the well-known facts of the deathlike trance and premature burial. where burial occurred, as in the east, immediately after the apparent death,[ ] resuscitation must have been rare. yet cases of it were not unknown. pliny has a chapter "on those who have revived on being carried forth for burial." lord bacon states that of this there have been "very many cases." a french writer of the eighteenth century, bruhier, in his "_dissertations sur l'incertitude de la mort et l'abus des enterrements_," records seventy-two cases of mistaken pronouncement of death, fifty-three of revival in the coffin before burial, and fifty-four of burial alive. a locally famous and thoroughly attested case in this country is that of the rev. william tennent, pastor in freehold, new jersey, in the eighteenth century, who lay apparently dead for three days, reviving from trance just as his delayed funeral was about to proceed. one who keeps a scrap-book could easily collect quite an assortment of such cases, and of such others as have a tragic ending, both from domestic and foreign journals. a work published some years ago by dr. f. hartmann[ ] exhibits one hundred and eight cases as typical among over seven hundred that have been authenticated.[ ] facts like these have been strangely overlooked in the hasty judgment prompted by prejudice against whatever has obtained credence as miraculous. some significant considerations must be seriously entertained. it cannot be that no such facts occurred in the long periods covered by the biblical writers. occurring, it is extremely improbable that they should have altogether escaped embodiment in popular tradition and its record. furthermore, while on one hand the custom of speedy burial rendered them much rarer than they are now under other conditions, and so much the more extraordinary, the universal ignorance of the causes involved would have accepted resuscitation as veritable restoration from actual death. as such it would have passed into tradition. in cases where it had come to pass in connection with the efforts of a recognized prophet, or through any contact with him, it would certainly have been regarded as a genuine miracle. among the raisings of the "dead" recorded in the scriptures probably none has been so widely doubted by critical readers as the story in the thirteenth chapter of the second book of kings, in which a corpse is restored to life by contact with the bones of elisha. dean stanley's remark upon the suspicious similarity between the miracles related of elisha and those found in roman catholic legends of great saints here seems quite pertinent. let the record speak for itself. "and elisha died and they buried him. now the bands of the moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. and it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet." the bizarre character of such a story excusably predisposes many a critic to stamp it as fabricated to enhance the glory of the great prophet who had been a pillar of the throne. yet nothing is more likely than that tradition has here preserved a bit of history, extraordinary, but real. there is not the least improbability in regarding the case as one of the many revivals from the deathlike trance that have been noted by writers ancient and modern. it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the trance in which the seemingly dead man lay was broken either by the shock of his fall into the prophet's tomb, or coincidently therewith; and stranger coincidences have happened. such a happening would be precisely the sort of thing to live in popular tradition, and to be incorporated into the annals of the time. here it may be rejoined that this is only a hypothesis. only that, to be sure. but so is the allegation that the story is a mere fantastic fabrication only a hypothesis. demonstration of the actual fact past all controversy being out of the question, all that can be offered for the attempt to rate the narrative at its proper value, either as history or as fiction, is hypothesis. the choice lies for us between two hypotheses. surely, that hypothesis is the more credible which is based on a solid body of objective facts, and meets all the conditions of the case. will it be replied to this that the critics can show for their hypothesis the admitted fact of the human proclivity to invent legends of miracle? the decisive answer is that the burden of proof rests on him who contests any statement ostensibly historical. if such a statement be found to square with admitted objective facts, it must be accepted notwithstanding considerations drawn from the subjective tendency to invent extraordinary tales. were raisings of the "dead" recorded in the old testament alone, objection would less often be offered to this transference of them, along with other occurrences once deemed miraculous, to a place in the natural order of things. the statistics of premature burial and of the resuscitation of the apparently dead before burial are sufficiently strong to throw grave doubt on any contention that the resuscitations narrated of elijah[ ] and elisha[ ] do not belong in that historical series. it has been frequently observed, however, that there is much reluctance to apply to the new testament the methods and canons of criticism that are applied to the old. it will be so in the present case, through apprehension of somehow detracting from the distinctive glory of christ. that fear will not disturb one who sees that glory not in his "mighty works," the like of which were wrought by the prophets, but in the spiritual majesty of his personality, the divineness of his message to the world, and of the life and death that illustrated it. one case, at least, among jesus' raisings of the "dead," that of the young daughter of the ruler of the synagogue,[ ] is admitted even by sceptical critics to have been a resuscitation from the trance that merely simulates death. but the fact that there is a record of his saying in this case, "the child is not dead, but sleepeth," and no record of his saying the same at the bier of the widow's son,[ ] is slight ground, yet all the ground there is, against the great probabilities to the contrary, for regarding the latter case as so transcendently different from the former as the actual reëmbodiment of a departed spirit recalled from another world. were these the only two cases of restoration to life in the ministry of jesus, it is most probable that they would be regarded as of the same kind. the raising of lazarus[ ] presents peculiar features, in view of which it is generally regarded as of another kind, and the greatest of miracles, so stupendous that the rev. w. j. dawson, in his recent _life of christ_, written from an evangelical standpoint, says of it: "even the most devout mind may be forgiven occasional pangs of incredulity." but the considerations already presented are certainly sufficient to justify a reëxamination of the case. and it is to be borne in mind that the question at issue is, not what the eye-witnesses at that time believed, not what the church from that time to this has believed, not what we are willing to believe, or would like to believe, but what all the facts with any bearing on the case, taken together, fully justify us in believing as to the real nature of it. what jesus is recorded as saying of it is, of course, of prime importance. "our friend lazarus is fallen asleep, but i go that i may awake him out of sleep." were this all, the case might easily have been classed as one of trance. the disciples, however, understood jesus to speak of natural sleep. "then jesus therefore said unto them plainly, _lazarus is dead_." tradition puts the maximum meaning into this word "dead." but if this word here qualifies the preceding word, "fallen asleep," so also is it qualified by that; the two are mutually explanatory, not contradictory. these alternatives are before us: is the maximum or the minimum meaning to be assigned to the crucial word "dead"? for the minimum, one can say that a deathly trance, already made virtual death by immediate interment, would amply justify jesus in using the word "dead" in order to impress the disciples with the gravity of the case, as not a natural but a deathly, and, in the existing situation, a fatal sleep. for the maximum, no more can be advanced than the hazardous assertion that jesus _must_ have used the word with technical precision in its customary sense; an assertion of course protected from disproof by our ignorance of the actual fact.[ ] but whatever support this view of the case derives from such ignorance is overbalanced by the support supplied to the other view by the long history of revivals from the deathly trance, and by the probabilities which that history creates. many, to whom the view here proposed seems not only new, but unwelcome, and even revolutionary, may reasonably prefer to suspend judgment for reflection; but meanwhile some further considerations may be entertained. . aside from the unwillingness to abandon a long-cherished belief on any subject whatever, which is both a natural, and, when not pushed to an unreasonable length, a desirable brake on all inconsiderate change, no practical interest is threatened by the adoption of the view here suggested. religious interest, so far as it is also intelligent, is certainly not threatened. the evidences of jesus' divine character and mission resting, as for modern men it rests, not on remote wonders, but on now acknowledged facts of an ethical and spiritual kind, is altogether independent of our conclusion whether it was from actual or only apparent death that lazarus was raised. since all the mighty works wrought by jesus, and this among them, were identical in type with those wrought by the ancient prophets, with whom his countrymen classed him in his lifetime, their evidential significance could be, even for the eye-witnesses at that tomb, no greater for him than for an elisha,--signs of a divine mission attesting itself by works of mercy. . as works of mercy these raisings from the "dead," including that of lazarus, rank far higher in the view of them here proposed than in the traditional view. this regards them as the recall of departed spirits from what is hoped to be "a better world." yet this, while it turns sorrow for a time into joy, involves not only the recurrence of that sorrow in all its keenness, but also a second tasting of the pains preliminary to the death-gate, when the time comes to pass that gate again. but in the other view, a raising from the death that is only simulated is a merciful deliverance from a calamity greater than simple death, if that be any calamity at all,--the fate of burial alive. in the former view, therefore, the quality of mercy, distinctive of the mighty works of jesus, is imperfectly demonstrable. in the present view, as the rescue of the living from death in one of its most horrible forms, it is abundantly conspicuous. . the onlookers by the tomb of lazarus doubtless regarded his awakening as revival from actual death. their opinion, however, does not bind our judgment any more than it is bound by the opinion of other onlookers, that jesus' healing of the insane and epileptic was through the expulsion of demons that possessed them. in each instance it was understood as a sign of control over beings belonging to another world. but such an attestation of jesus' divine mission, having been superseded for us by proofs of higher character, is now no more needful for us in the case of the "dead" than in the case of the "demons." . the power of breaking the deathly trance, of quickening the dormant life, reënergizing the collapsed nervous organism, and ending its paralysis of sensation and motion, may be reasonably regarded as power of the same psychical kind that jesus regularly exerted in healing the sufferers from nervous disorders who were reputed victims of demoniac possession.[ ] in this view these resuscitations from apparent death appear in natural coherence with the many other works of mercy that jesus wrought as the great physician of his people, and may be regarded as the crown and consummation of all his restorative ministries. jesus' thanksgiving after the tomb had been opened--"father, i thank thee that thou hast heard me"--shows that he had girded himself for a supreme effort by concentrating the utmost energy of his spirit in prayer. physically parallel with this was the intensity of voice put into his call to the occupant of the tomb. this is better represented in the original than in our translation: "he shouted with a great voice, 'lazarus, come forth.'" the whole record indicates the utmost tension of all his energies, and closely comports with the view that this stood to the sequel in the relation of cause to effect.[ ] another circumstance not without bearing on the case is the energizing power of the intense sympathy with the bereaved family that stirred the soul of jesus to weep and groan with them. and it is not without significance that this strong factor appears active in the larger number of the biblical cases,--three of them only children, two of these the children of the pitiable class of widows. peculiar, then, as was the case of lazarus, our examination of it reveals no substantial ground for insisting that it was essentially unlike the previous case of the ruler's daughter, that it was the bringing back into a decaying body of a spirit that had entered into the world of departed souls. the actual fact, of course, is indemonstrable. our conclusion has to be formed wholly upon the probabilities of the case, and must be formed in a reasonable choice between the greater probability and the less. the restoration of dorcas to life by peter, recorded in the book of acts,[ ] needs no special discussion beyond the various considerations already adduced in this chapter. the case of eutychus, recorded in the same book,[ ] requires mention only lest it should seem to have been forgotten, as it is not in point at all. the record makes it highly probable that the supposed death was nothing more than the loss of consciousness for a few hours in consequence of a fall from the window. * * * * * if one should here suggest that no mention has yet been made of the resurrection of jesus himself, it must be pointed out that this is a fact of a totally different kind from any of the foregoing cases. to speak, as many do, of the "resurrection of lazarus" is a misuse of words. resuscitation to life in this world, and resurrection, the rising up of the released spirit into the life of the world to come, are as distinct as are the worlds to which they severally belong. we here consider only the _raisings_ which restored to the virtually dead their interrupted mortal life. the _rising_ from the mortal into the immortal state belongs to an entirely different field of study. * * * * * apart, then, from traditional prepossessions, examination of the biblical narratives discloses nothing to invalidate the hypothesis which one who is acquainted with the copious record of apparent but unreal death must seriously and impartially consider. the reputedly miraculous raisings of the "dead" related in both the old and the new testament may, with entire reason, and without detriment to religion, be classed with such as are related outside of the scriptures, in ancient times as well as modern, and as phenomena wholly within the natural order, however extraordinary. the practical result of such a conclusion is likely to be a gain for the historicity of the scripture narratives in the estimate of a large class of thoughtful minds. footnotes: [ ] an objection to the historicity of the raising of lazarus which is made on the ground that so great a work, if historical, would have been related by more than one of the evangelists, yields on reflection the possibility that jesus may have effected more than the three raisings recorded of him. john is the sole narrator of the raising of lazarus. but he omits notice of the two raisings recorded by the other evangelists, while matthew and mark do not record the raising of the widow's son recorded by luke. all this suggests that the record may have preserved for us specimens rather than a complete list of this class of miracles. (compare john xxi. .) [ ] "we have frequent cases of trance, ... where the parties seem to die, but after a time the spirit returns, and life goes on as before. in all this there is no miracle. why may not the resuscitations in christ's time possibly have been similar cases? is not this less improbable than that the natural order of the universe should have been set aside?"--_the problem of final destiny_, by william b. brown, d.d., . [ ] on account of the ceremonial "uncleanness" caused by the dead body. see numbers v. , and many similar passages. [ ] _buried alive_ (universal truth publishing co., chicago). see also _premature burial_, by d. walsh (william wood & co., new york), and _premature burial_, by w. tebb and e. p. vollum (new amsterdam book co., new york). [ ] other writers might be mentioned, as mme. necker ( ), dr. vigné ( ). yet on the other hand it is alleged, that "none of the numerous stories of this dreadful accident which have obtained credence from time to time seem to be authentic" (_american cyclopedia_, art. "burial"). allowing a wide margin for exaggeration and credulity, there is certainly a residuum of fact. a correspondent of the (london) _spectator_ a few years since testified to a distressing case in his own family. [ ] kings xvii. - . [ ] kings iv. - . [ ] mark v. - . [ ] luke vii. - . [ ] john xi. - . [ ] was jesus aware that lazarus was really not dead? it is impossible to reach a positive conclusion. in some directions his knowledge was certainly limited. that he was not aware of the reality might be inferred from his seeming to have allowed his act to pass for what, in the view of it here suggested, it was not,--the recall to life of one actually dead. this, however, assumes the completeness of a record whose silence on this point cannot be pressed as conclusive. it is, indeed, unlikely that jesus knew all that medical men now know. but awareness of any fact may be in varying degrees from serious suspicion up to positive certitude. while far from positiveness, awareness may exist in a degree that gives courage for resolute effort resulting in clear and full verification. jesus may have been ignorant of the objective reality of lazarus's condition, and yet have been very hopeful of being empowered by the divine aid he prayed for (john xi. ) to cope with it successfully. [ ] see pages , , note. [ ] jesus' works of healing are explicitly attributed by the evangelists to a peculiar power that issued from him. in mark v. , luke vi. , and viii. , the original word _dunamis_, which the authorized version translates "virtue," is more correctly rendered "power" in the revised version. especially noticeable is the peculiar phraseology of mark v. : "jesus perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth (r. v.)." the peculiar circumstances of the case suggest that the going forth of this power might be motived sub-consciously, as well as by conscious volition. [ ] acts ix. - . [ ] acts xx. - . iv iv synopsis.--a clearer conception of miracle approached.--works of jesus once reputed miraculous not so reputed now, since not now transcending, as once, the existing range of knowledge and power.--this transfer of the miraculous to the natural likely to continue.--no hard and fast line between the miraculous and the non-miraculous.--miracle a provisional word, its application narrowing in the enlarging mastery of the secrets of nature and life. at this point it seems possible to approach a clearer understanding of the proper meaning to attach to the generally ill-defined and hazy term _miracle_.[ ] matthew arnold's fantastic illustration of the idea of miracle by supposing a pen changed to a pen-wiper may fit some miracles, especially those of the catholic hagiology, but, if applied to those of jesus, would be a caricature. in the new testament a reputed miracle is not any sort of wonderful work upon any sort of occasion, but an act of benevolent will exerted for an immediate benefit,[ ] and transcending the then existing range of human intelligence to explain and power to achieve. the historic reality of at least some such acts performed by jesus is acknowledged by critics as free from the faintest trace of orthodox bias as keim: "the picture of jesus, the worker of miracles, belongs to the first believers in christ, and is no invention." it has already been noted that a considerable number of the then reputed miracles of jesus, particularly his works of healing, do not now, as then, transcend the existing range of knowledge and power, and accordingly are no longer reputed miraculous. and one cannot reasonably believe that a limit to the understanding and control of forces in nature and mind that now are more or less occult has been already reached. it is, therefore, not incredible that some of the mighty works of jesus, which still transcend the existing limits of knowledge and power, and so are still reputed miraculous, and are suspected by many as unhistorical, may in some yet remote and riper stage of humanity be transferred, as some have already been, to the class of the non-miraculous and natural. dr. robbins, dean of the general theological seminary, new york, after remarking that "the word _miracle_ has done more to introduce confusion into christian evidences than any other," goes on to say: "to animals certain events to them inexplicable are signs of the presence of human intelligence and power. to men these miracles of christ are signs of divine intelligence and power. but how is miracle to be differentiated from other providential dealings of god? not by removing him further from common events. abstruse speculations concerning the relation of miracles to other physical phenomena may be safely left to the adjustment of an age which shall have advanced to a more perfect synthesis of knowledge than the present can boast."[ ] the truth to which such considerations conduct is, that no hard and fast line can be drawn between the miraculous and the non-miraculous. to the untutored mind, like that of the savage who thought it miraculous that a chip with a message written on it had talked to the recipient, the simplest thing that he cannot explain is miraculous: "_omne ignotum pro mirifico_," said tacitus. as the range of knowledge and power widens, the range of the miraculous narrows correspondingly. some twenty years since, the international sunday-school lessons employed as a proof of the divinity of christ the reputedly miraculous knowledge which he evinced in his first interview with nathanael of a solitary hour in nathanael's experience.[ ] since then it has been demonstrated[ ] by psychical research that the natural order of the world includes telepathy, and the range of the miraculous has been correspondingly reduced without detriment to the argument for the divinity of christ, now rested on less precarious ground. under such conditions as we have reviewed a miracle cannot always be one and the same thing. miracle must therefore be defined as being what our whole course of thought has suggested that it is: in general, an elastic word; in particular, a provisional word,--a word whose application narrows with the enlarging range of human knowledge[ ] and power which for the time it transcends; a word whose history, in its record of ranges already transcended, prompts expectation that ranges still beyond may be transcended in the illimitable progress of mankind. professor le conte says that miracle is "an occurrence or a phenomenon according to a law higher than any yet known." thus it is a case of human ignorance, not of divine interference. on the other hand, we must believe that the goal of progress is a flying goal; that human attainment can never reach finality unless men cease to be. and so all widening of human knowledge and power must ever disclose further limitations to be transcended. there will always be a _beyond_, in which dwells the secret of laws still undiscovered, that underlie mysteries unrevealed and marvels unexplained. this will have to be admitted, especially, by those to whom the marvellous is synonymous with the incredible. we have not been able to eviscerate even these prosaic and matter-of-fact modern times of marvels whose secret lies in the yet uncatalogued or indefinable powers of the mysterious agent that we name _life_: witness many well verified facts recorded by the society for psychical research.[ ] how, then, is it consistent to affirm that no such marvels in ancient records are historical realities? nay, may it not be true that the ancient days of seers and prophets, the days of jesus, days of the sublime strivings of great and lonely souls for closer converse with the infinite spirit behind his mask of nature, offered better conditions for marvellous experiences and deeds than these days of scientific laboratories and factories, and world-markets and world-politics? footnotes: [ ] "early and mediæval theologians agree in conceiving the miraculous as being above, not contrary to, nature. the question entered on a new phase when hume defined a miracle as a violation of nature, and asserted the impossibility of substantiating its actual occurrence. the modern discussion has proceeded largely in view of hume's destructive criticism. assuming the possibility of a miracle, the questions of fact and of definition remain."--_dictionary of psychology._ "when we find the definition for which we are searching, the miraculous will no longer be a problem."--professor w. sanday, at the anglican church congress, . [ ] for exceptions see matthew xxi. ; acts xiii. , . [ ] _a christian apologetic_, p. . [ ] john i. - . [ ] in the opinion of such psychologists as professor william james, of harvard, the late professor henry sidgwick, of cambridge, england, and others of like eminence. [ ] a hint of this was given by augustine: "portentum non fit contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura."--_de civitate dei._ [ ] consult the late f. w. h. myers's remarkable volumes on _human personality and survival after death_ (longmans, green & co.). v v synopsis.--biblical miracles the effluence of extraordinary lives.--life the world's magician and miracle worker; its miracles now termed _prodigies_.--miracle the natural product of an extraordinary endowment of life.--life the ultimate reality.--what any man can achieve is conditioned by the psychical quality of his life.--nothing more natural, more supernatural, than life.--the derived life of the world filial to the self-existent life of god, "begotten, not made."--miracle, as the product of life, the work of god. be it noted, now, that the marvellous phenomena of the biblical record, whatever else be thought of them, are, even to a superficial view, the extraordinary effluence of extraordinary lives. here at length we gain a clearer conception of miracle. _life_ is the world's great magician,--life, so familiar, yet so mysterious; so commonplace, yet so transcendent. no miracle is more marvellous than its doings witnessed in the biological laboratory, or more inexplicable than its transformation of dead matter into living flesh, its development of a shakespeare from a microscopic bit of protoplasm. but its mysterious processes are too common for general marvel; we marvel only at the uncommon. the boy zerah colburn in half a minute solved the problem, "how many seconds since the beginning of the christian era?" we prefer to call this a prodigy rather than a miracle,--a distinction more verbal than real; and we fancy we have explained it when we say that such arithmetical power was a peculiar endowment of his mental life. now all of the inexplicable, inimitable reality that at any time has to be left by the baffled intellect as an unsolved wonder under the name of miracle is just that,--_the natural product of an extraordinary endowment of life_. more of its marvellous capability is latent in common men, in the subconscious depths of being, than has ever yet flashed forth in the career of uncommon men. some scientists say that it depends on chemical and physical forces. it indeed uses these to build the various bodies it inhabits, but again it leaves these to destroy those bodies when it quits them. the most constant and ubiquitous phenomenon in the world, the ultimate reality in the universe, is _life_, revealing its presence in innumerable modes of activity, from the dance of atoms in the rock to the philosophizing of the sage and the aspirations of the saint,--the creator of nature, the administrator of the regular processes we call the laws of nature, the author of the wonders men call miraculous because they are uncommon and ill understood. the works of which any man is naturally capable are conditioned by the psychical quality of his life, and its power to use the forces of nature. through differences of vital endowment some can use color, as wonderful painters, and others employ sound, as wonderful musicians, in ways impossible to those otherwise endowed. so "a poet is born, not made." so persons of feeble frame, stimulated by disease or frenzied by passion, have put forth preternatural and prodigious muscular strength. by what we call "clairvoyant" power life calls up in intelligent perception things going on far beyond ocular vision. by what we call "telepathic" power life communicates intelligence with life separated by miles of space. such are some of the powers that have been discovered, and fully attested, but not explained, as belonging to the world's master magician, _life_. and when the poet asks,-- "ah, what will our children be, the men of a hundred thousand, a million summers away?" we can only answer with the apostle: "it doth not yet appear what we shall be." but we cannot deem it likely that the powers of life, "deep seated in our mystic frame," and giving forth such flashes of their inherent virtue, have already reached their ultimate development. we look with wonder and awe into the secret shrine of life, where two scarcely visible cells unite to form the human being whose thought shall arrange the starry heavens in majestic order, and harness the titanic energies of nature for the world's work. there we behold the real supernatural. nothing is more natural than life, and nothing also more supernatural. biology studies all the various forms that the world shows of it, and affirms that life, though multiform, is one. this embryology attests, showing that the whole ascent of life through diverse forms from the lowest to the highest, during the millions of years since life first manifested its presence on this globe, is recapitulated in the stages of growth through which the human being passes in the few months before its birth. and philosophy, which does not seek the living among the dead, affirms, _omne vivum ex vivo_. the varied but unitary life of the world is the stream of an exhaustless spring. it is filial to the life of god, the father almighty. what the ancient creed affirmed of the christ as the son of god--whom his beloved disciple recognized as "the eternal life which was with the father and was manifested unto us[ ]"--may be truly affirmed of the mysterious reality that is known as life: "begotten not made; being of one substance with the father; through whom [or which] all things were made." looking from the derived and finite life of the world, visible only in the signs of its presence, but in its reality no more visible than him "whom no man hath seen, nor can see," up to the life underived, aboriginal, infinite, we recognize _god_ and _life_ as terms of identical significance. how superficial the notion of miracles as "the personal intervention of god into the chain of cause and effect," in which he is the constant vital element. if an event deemed miraculous is ever ascribed, as of old, to "the finger of god," the reality behind the phenomenon is simply a higher or a stronger power of life than is recognized in an event of a common type--life that is one with the infinite and universal life, "life that in me has rest, as i, undying life, have power in thee." footnotes: [ ] john i. . vi vi synopsis.--the question, both old and new, now confronting theologians.--their recent retreat upon the minimum of miracle.--the present conflict of opinion in the church.--its turning-point reached in the antipodal turn-about in the treatment of miracles from the old to the new apologetics.--revision of the traditional idea of the supernatural required for theological readjustment. the present line of thought has now reached the point where an important question confronts us,--a question not wholly new. within the memory of living men theologians have been compelled to ask themselves: what if the geologists should establish facts that contradict our biblically derived doctrine that the universe was made in a week? again have they been constrained to put to themselves the question: what if the evolutionists should supersede our doctrine that the creation is the immediate product of successive fiats of the creator by showing that it came gradually into existence through the progressive operation of forces immanent in the cosmos? still again have they had to face the question: what if modern criticism by the discovery of demonstrable errors in the sacred writings should fault our doctrine that, as the word of god, the bible is free from all and every error? in every instance the dreaded concession, when found at length to be enforced by modern learning, has been found to bring, not the loss that had been apprehended, but clear gain to the intellectual interests of religion. now it is this same sort of question which returns with the uncertainties and difficulties widely felt in the church to be gathering over its hitherto unvexed belief in miracles as signs of a divine activity more immediate than it has recognized in the regular processes of nature. the majority of uneducated christians still hold, as formerly in each of the points just mentioned, to the traditional view. miracle as a divine intervention in the natural order, a more close and direct divine contact with the course of things than is the case in ordinary experience, they regard as the inseparable and necessary concomitant and proof of a divine revelation. to deny miracles, thus understood, is censured as equivalent to denial of the reality of the revelation. but it is rather surprising, because it is rare, to find a man of such note in literature as dr. w. robertson nicoll affirming[ ] that one cannot be a christian without believing at least two miracles, the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of the christ. without comment on the significance of this retreat upon the minimum of miracle, it must here be noted that a minority of the church, not inferior to their brethren in learning and piety, believe that there are no tides in god's presence in nature, that his contact with it is always of the closest:-- "closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands or feet." all natural operations are to them divine operations. "nature," said dr. martineau, "is god's mask, not his competitor." while his agency in nature may be _recognized_ at one time more than at another, it _exists_ at any time fully as much as at any other. in the interest of this fundamental truth of religion they affirm that miracles in the traditional sense of the word, and in their traditional limitation to the small measure of time and space covered by biblical narratives, never occurred. events reputed miraculous have indeed occurred, but simply as unusual, inexplicable phenomena in the natural order of things, the natural products of exceptionally endowed life, and, whether in ancient time or modern, the same sort of thing the world over. to the argument that this involves denial of a supernatural revelation they reply that it is mere reasoning in a circle. for if one begs the question at the outset by defining supernatural revelation as revelation necessarily evidenced by miraculous divine intervention, then, of course, denial of this is denial of that, and how is the argument advanced? but, besides this, the question-begging definition is a fallacious confusing of the contents of the revelation with its concomitants, and of its essentially spiritual character with phenomena in the sphere of the senses. the turning-point in this argument between the two parties in the church has been reached in the antipodal change, already referred to, from the old to the new apologetics,--a change whose inevitable consequences do not yet seem to be clearly discerned by either party in the discussion. the contention that denial of miracles as traditionally understood carries denial of supernatural revelation has been virtually set aside, with its question-begging definition and circular reasoning, by the apologetics now current among believers in at least a minimum of miracle in the traditional sense of the word,--especially in the two chief miracles of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of jesus. as an eminent representative of these the late dr. a. b. bruce may be cited. these adduce "the moral miracle," the sinlessness of jesus, as evidential for the reality of the physical miracles as its "congruous accompaniments." "if," says dr. bruce, "we receive him as the great moral miracle, we shall receive much more for his sake."[ ] but what a turn-about of the traditional argument on the evidences! the older apologetes argued: this crown of miraculous power bespeaks the royal dignity of the wearer. the modern apologete reasons: this royal character must have a crown of miraculous power corresponding with his moral worth. in this antipodal reverse of christian thought it is quite plain that for evidential purposes the miracle is stripped of its ancient value. and it has already been observed that modern knowledge has now transferred many of the biblical miracles to the new rooms discovered for them in the natural order of things. it is not premature, therefore, for leaders of christian thought to put once more to themselves the question, constantly recurring as learning advances: what theological readjustment should we have to make, if obliged to concede that the ancient belief in miracle is not inseparable from belief in a supernatural revelation, not indispensable to belief therein? what modified conception must we form, if constrained to admit that the living god, ever immanent in nature, intervenes in nature no more at one time than another? what, indeed, but a revised and true in place of a mistaken conception of the term _supernatural_? footnotes: [ ] "the church asks, and it is entitled to ask the critic: do you believe in the incarnation and resurrection of jesus christ?... if he replies in the negative, he has missed the way, and has put himself outside of the church of christ."--_the church's one foundation_, p. . [note that "incarnation" and "resurrection" are terms which dr. nicoll construes as denoting physical miracles.] what dr. nicoll here means by "outside of the church" he indicates by saying elsewhere, that philosophers who reckon goodness as everything, and miracles as impossible, "are not christians" (_op. cit._, p. ). this conditioning of christian character upon an intellectual judgment concerning the reality of remote occurrences is both unbiblical and unethical, as well as absurd when practically applied. some years since, dr. e. a. abbott, who admits no miracle in the life of christ, published a book, _the spirit on the waters_, in which he inculcated the worship of christ. yet, according to dr. nicoll, such a man is no christian! [ ] _the miraculous element in the gospels_, p. . vii vii synopsis.--account to be made of the law of atrophy through disuse.--the virgin birth and the corporeal resurrection of jesus, the two miracles now insisted on as the irreducible minimum, affected by this law.--the vital truths of the incarnation and immortality independent of these miracles.--these truths now placed on higher ground in a truer conception of the supernatural.--the true supernatural is the spiritual, not the miraculous.--scepticism bred from the contrary view.--the miracle narratives, while less evidential for religion, not unimportant for history.--psychical research a needful auxiliary for the scientific critic of these. to the true conception of the supernatural we shall presently come. but we cannot proceed without briefly reminding ourselves of the certain consequences of this now far advanced dropping of miracles by modern apologetics from their ancient use as evidences of a supernatural revelation. we are not ignorant of the law, which holds throughout the material, the mental, and the moral realms, that disuse tends to atrophy and extinction. disused organs cease to exist, as in the eyeless cave-fish. for centuries the story of the miraculous birth of jesus was serviceable for confirmation of his claim to be the son of god. in the address of the angel of the annunciation to mary that claim is expressly rested on the miraculous conception of "the holy thing."[ ] but as ethical enlightenment grows, the conviction grows that, whether the physiological ground of that claim be tenable or not, the ethical ground of it is essentially higher. _father_ and _son_ even in human relationships are terms of more than physiological import. it is matter of frequent experience that, where the ethical character of such relationship is lacking, the physiological counts for nothing. moreover, the divine sonship of jesus in a purely ethical view rests on ground not only higher but incontestable. and so in our time theologians prefer to rest it on foundations that cannot be shaken, on his moral oneness with god, the divineness of his spirit, the ideal perfectness of his life. the strength of this position being realized, the world begins to hear from christian thinkers the innovating affirmation that belief of the miraculous birth can no longer be deemed essential to christianity; else it would not have been left unmentioned in two of the four gospels, and in every extant apostolic letter. and now we hear theologians saying: "i accept it, but i place it no more among the evidences of christianity. i defend it, but cannot employ it in the defence of supernatural revelation." such a stage of thought is only transitional. an antiquated argument does not long survive in the world of thought.[ ] military weapons that have become unserviceable soon find their way either to the museum or the foundry. it is shortsighted not to foresee the inevitable effect on our theological material of the law of atrophy through disuse. the case of the miracle is the case of a pillar originally put in for the support of an ancient roof. when the roof has a modern truss put beneath it springing from wall to wall, the pillar becomes an obstacle, and is removed. but as in such a case the roof, otherwise supported, does not fall in when the pillar is removed, so neither is the central christian truth of the incarnation imperilled by any weakening or vanishing of belief in the doctrine of the virgin birth. in a discussion of the subject in convocation at york, england, while these pages were being written, the dean of ripon (dr. boyd carpenter) urged that it must be borne in mind that the incarnation and the virgin birth were two different things, and that some who found difficulty in the latter fully accepted the former. in a recent sermon dr. briggs insists likewise upon this: "the virgin birth is only one of many statements of the mode of incarnation.... the doctrine of the incarnation does not depend upon the virgin birth.... it is only a minor matter connected with the incarnation, and should have a subordinate place in the doctrine.... at the same time the virgin birth is a new testament doctrine, and we must give it its proper place and importance.... the favorite idea of the incarnation among the people has ever been the simpler one of the virgin birth, as in the ave maria. the theologians have ever preferred the more profound doctrine of the hymn of the logos [john i. - ]."[ ] nay, it may even be found that the weakening of belief in the incarnation as an isolated and miraculous event may tend to promote a profounder conception of it, that brings the divine and the human into touch and union at all points instead of in one point.[ ] a similar change of thought, less remarked than its significance deserves, is concerned with that other great miracle, the corporeal resurrection of jesus, which such writers as dr. nicoll couple with that of his virgin birth as the irreducible minimum of miracle, belief in which is essential to christian discipleship.[ ] for many centuries the resurrection story in the gospels has served as the conclusive proof both of the divine sonship of jesus,[ ] and of our own resurrection to immortality.[ ] in the churches it is still popularly regarded as the supreme, sufficient, and indispensable fact required for the basis of faith. but in many a christian mind the thought has dawned, that a single fact cannot give adequate ground for the general inference of a universal principle; that a remote historical fact, however strongly attested, can evince only what _has_ taken place in a given case, not what _will_ or _must_ occur in other cases; while it is also inevitably more or less pursued by critical doubt of the attestations supporting it. this rising tide of reflection has compelled resort to higher ground, to the inward evidences in the nature of mind that are more secure from the doubt to which all that is merely external and historical is exposed. a clear distinction has been discerned between the _real_ resurrection of jesus--his rising from the mortal state into the immortal, and his _phenomenal_ resurrection--the manifestations of his change that are related as having been objectively witnessed. what took place in the invisible world--his real resurrection--is now more emphasized by christian thinkers than the phenomenal resurrection in the visible world. so conservatively orthodox a writer as dr. g. d. boardman goes so far as to say: "after all, the real question in the matter of his resurrection is not, 'did christ's body rise?' that is but a subordinate, incidental issue." the real question, as dr. boardman admits, is, "whether jesus christ himself is risen, and is alive to-day."[ ] the main stress of christian thought to-day is not laid, as formerly, on the phenomena recorded in the story of the resurrection, but on the psychological, moral, and rational evidences of a resurrection to immortality that until recent times were comparatively disregarded.[ ] meanwhile the vindication of the reality of the phenomena related of the risen jesus, including his bodily ascension, though not a matter of indifference to many of those who have found the higher grounds of faith, has become to them of subordinate importance. it is well for christian faith that its supersensuous and impregnable grounds have been occupied. it is certain that ancient records of external phenomena cannot in future constitute, as heretofore, the stronghold of faith. but it is by no means yet certain that they have lost serviceableness as, at least, outworks of the stronghold. while the doctrine of the virgin birth seems to be threatened by atrophy, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, though retired from primary to secondary rank, seems to be waiting rather for clarification by further knowledge. something of an objective nature certainly lies at its basis; _something_ of an external sort, not the product of mere imagination, took place. to the fact thus indefinitely stated, that hallowing of sunday as a day of sacred and joyful observance which is coeval with the earliest traditions, and antedates all records, is an attestation as significant as any monumental marble. no hallucination theory, no gradual rise and growth of hope in the minds of a reflective few, can account for that solid primeval monument. but _what_ occurred, the reality in distinctness from any legendary accretions, we shall be better able to conclude, when the truth shall have been threshed out concerning the reality, at present strongly attested, and as strongly controverted, of certain extraordinary but occult psychical powers.[ ] a point of high significance for those who would cultivate a religious faith not liable to be affected by changes of intellectual outlook or insight is, that this lower valuation of miracle observable among christian thinkers has not been reached through breaches made by sceptical doubts of the reality of a supernatural revelation. they have, of course, felt the reasonableness of the difficulties with which traditional opinions have been encumbered by the advance of knowledge. but so far from giving way thereupon to doubts of the reality of divine revelation, they have sought and found less assailable defences for their faith in it than those that sufficed their fathers. and their satisfaction therewith stands in no sympathy with those who hold it a mark of enlightenment to assume with matthew arnold, that "miracles do not happen." it has resulted rather from reaching the higher grounds of religious thought, on which supernatural revelation is recognized in its essential character as distinctively moral and spiritual. the true supernatural is the _spiritual_, not the miraculous, a higher order of nature, not a contradiction of nature. the revelation of jesus was altogether spiritual. it consisted in the ideas of god which he communicated by his ministry and teaching, by his character and life. but this, the real supernatural, was not obvious as such to his contemporaries. they looked for it in the lower region of physical effects. and here the church also in its embryonic spiritual life, in its proneness to externalize religion in forms of rite, and creed, and organization, has thought to find it. jesus' reproof, "except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe," is still pertinent to those who will not have it that the supernatural revelation--spiritual though it be--can be recognized or believed in apart from an acknowledgment of attendant miracles, wrought in physical nature by an intervention of god. such a contention, however, is as futile and desperate as was john wesley's declaration, "the giving up of witchcraft is in effect the giving up of the bible." such mischievous fallacies succeed only in blinding many a mind to the real issue which the moral and spiritual revelation of jesus makes with men of the twentieth century. it is these fallacies, and not their critics, that create the most of scepticism.[ ] but while the question whether miracles are credible has ceased to be of vital importance, it has by no means lost all importance. on the contrary, so long as the path of progress is guided by the lamp of experience, so long will it be of consequence that the historical record of experience be found trustworthy. it may suit the overweening pride which defies both the past and the present to say with bonaparte, that history is only a fable that men have agreed to believe. but it is a human interest, and a satisfaction of normal minds to establish, so far as reason permits, the credibility of every record ostensibly historic. to discover that ancient experiences, once supposed to be miraculous raisings from real death, may reasonably be classed with well attested experiences of to-day, better understood as resuscitations from a deathlike trance, should be welcomed by unprejudiced historical critics, as redeeming portions of the ancient record from mistaken disparagement as legendary. that further study may accredit as facts, or at least as founded on facts, some other marvels in that record cannot, except by arrant dogmatism, be pronounced improbable. nevertheless, it cannot be expected that the legendary element, which both the old and the new testament in greater and less degree exhibit, can ever be eliminated. such stories as that of the origin of languages at babel, and that of the resurrection of ancient saints at jesus' resurrection are indubitable cases of it. but the legendary element, though permanent, is at present undefined. to define it is the problem of the critical student, a problem most difficult to him whose judgment is least subjective; and he will welcome every contribution that advancing knowledge can supply. regarding miracle as the natural product of exceptionally endowed life, there is no source from which more light can be shed on its biblical record than in those studies of the exceptional phenomena and occult powers of life which are prosecuted by the society for psychical research, whose results are recorded in its published _proceedings_. for those familiar with this record the legendary element in the bible tends to shrink into smaller compass than many critics assign it. in the interest both of the bible and of science it is regrettable that the results of these researches, though conducted by men of high eminence in the scientific world, still encounter the same hostile scepticism even from some christian believers that hume directed against the biblical miracles. mr. gladstone has put himself on record against this philistinism, saying that "psychical research is by far the most important work that is being done in the world." were one disposed to prophesy, very reasonable grounds could be produced for the prediction that, great as was the advance of the nineteenth century in physical knowledge, the twentieth century will witness an advance in psychical knowledge equally great. in this advance one may not unreasonably anticipate that some, at least, of the biblical miracles may be relieved from the scepticism that now widely discredits them. footnotes: [ ] luke i. . [ ] to what extent the law of atrophy has begun to work upon the doctrine of the virgin birth appears in the recent utterance of so eminent an evangelical scholar as dr. r. f. horton, of london. the following report of his remarks in a christmas sermon in is taken from the _christian world_, london. "we could not imagine paul, peter, and john all ignoring something essential to the gospel they preached. strictly speaking, this narrative in matthew and luke was one of the latest touches in the gospel, belonging to a period forty or fifty years after the lord had passed away, when men had begun to realize what he was--the son of god--and tried to express their conviction in this form or that." the implication here is unmistakable, that, in dr. horton's view, subjective considerations in the minds of pious believers, rather than objective fact, form the basis of the story. [ ] see the sermon on "born of a virgin," in the volume on _the incarnation of our lord_. [ ] "christian thought has not erred by asserting too much concerning the incarnation of god, but, on the contrary, too little.... if ever overblown by blasts of denial, it is for wanting breadth of base.... men have disbelieved the incarnation, because told that all there was of it was in christ; and they reject what is presented as exceptional to the general way of god. they must be told to believe more; that the age-long way of god is in a perpetually increasing incarnation of life, whose climax and crown is the divine fulness of life in christ."--from a discourse by the present writer on "life and its incarnations," in the volume, _new points to old texts_. (james clarke & co., london. thomas whittaker, new york, .) [ ] see page and note. [ ] romans i. . [ ] corinthians xv. - . [ ] _our risen king's forty days_, . [ ] in strong contrast with this are the reactionary protests of dr. w. r. nicoll: "to talk of the resurrection of the spirit is preposterous. the spirit does not die, and therefore cannot rise.... the one resurrection of which the new testament knows, the one resurrection which allows to language any meaning, is the resurrection of the body, the resurrection which leaves the grave empty" (_op. cit._ p. ). it should be noted here that jesus' argument with the sadducees on the resurrection (luke xx. , ) logically proceeds on the assumption that living after death and rising after death are convertible terms. also, that the contrast involved in the idea of the resurrection (the _anastasis_, or rising up) is a contrast not between the grave and the sky, but between the lower life of mortals and the higher life immortal. for an extended exhibition of this line of evidence see "the assurance of immortality," and "the present pledge of life to come" (in two volumes of discourses by the present writer), london, james clarke & co. new york, thomas whittaker, and . [ ] could it have been only an apparition? the "census of hallucinations" conducted some ten years since by the society for psychical research evinced the reality of veridical apparitions of deceased persons at or near the time of their death, showing the number of verified cases to be so large as to exclude the supposition of chance hallucination (see _proceedings_, august, ). or could it have been a material body suddenly becoming visible in a closed room, as narrated by luke and john? first-class evidence, if there can be any such for such occurrences, has been exhibited for such phenomena as the passage of solid substances through intervening doors and walls--easy enough, say mathematicians, for a being familiar with the "fourth dimension"--and of the levitation of heavy bodies without physical support. (see _proceedings_, january, , and march, .) as to such things scepticism is doubtless in order, but dogmatic contradiction is not. _sub judice lis est._ [ ] professor borden p. bowne has thus exhibited this great mistake and its grievous consequence:-- "in popular thought, religious and irreligious alike, the natural is supposed to be something that runs itself without any internal guidance or external interference. the supernatural, on the other hand, if there be any such thing, is not supposed to manifest itself through the natural, but by means of portents, prodigies, interpositions, departures from, or infractions of, natural law in general. the realm of law belongs to the natural, and the natural runs itself. hence, if we are to find anything supernatural, we must look for it in the abnormal, the chaotic, the lawless, or that which defies all reduction to order that may be depended on. this notion underlies the traditional debate between naturalism and supernaturalism.... this unhappy misconception of the relation of the natural to the supernatural has practically led the great body of uncritical thinkers into the grotesque inversion of all reason--the more law and order, the less god."--_zion's herald_, august , . viii viii synopsis.--the cardinal point in the present discussion, the reality not of miracles but of the supernatural.--fallacy of pointing to physical events as essential characteristics of supernatural revelation.--the character of a revelation determined not by its circumstances, but by its contents.--moral nature supernatural to physical.--nature a hierarchy of natures.--supernatural religion historically attested by the moral development it generates.--transfer of its distinctive note from moral ideals to physical marvels a costly error.--jesus' miracles _a_ revelation, of a type common with others before and since.--the unique revelation of jesus was in the higher realm of divine ideas and ideals.--these, while unrealized in human life, still exhibit the fact of a supernatural revelation.--the distinction of natural and supernatural belongs to the period of moral progress up to the spiritual maturity of man in the image of god. the divine possibilities of humanity, imaged in jesus, revealed as our inheritance and our prize. it remains finally to emphasize the point of cardinal importance in the considerations that have been presented. this is not the reality of miracles, but the reality of the supernatural, what it really is, as distinct from what it has been thought to be. the advance of science and philosophy has brought to the front this question: "have those who reject the claims of supernatural religion been misinformed as to what it is?" is it, as they have been told, dependent for its attestation on signs and wonders occurring in the sphere of the senses? does it require acceptance of these, as well as of its teachings? or is its characteristic appeal wholly to the higher nature of man, relying for its attestation on the witness borne to it by this, rather than by extraordinary phenomena presented to the senses? there is at present no intellectual interest of christianity more urgent than this: to present to minds imbued with modern learning the true conception of the supernatural and of supernatural religion. miracles, legitimately viewed as the natural product of extraordinary psychical power, or, to phrase it otherwise, of an exceptional vital endowment, belong not to the hebrew race alone, nor did they cease when the last survivor of the jewish apostles of christianity passed away at the end of the first century. this traditional opinion ought by this time to have been entombed together with its long defunct relative, which represented this globe as the fixed centre of the revolving heavens. miracles have the same universality as human life. nor will their record be closed till the evolution of life is complete. animal life, advancing through geologic æons to the advent of man, in him reached its climax. spiritual life, appearing in him as a new bud on an old stock, is evidently far from its climax still. to believe in miracles, as rightly understood, is to believe in spirit and life, and in further unfoldings of their still latent powers. this, however, is just now of subordinate importance. the present interest of chief moment is a riddance of the hoary fallacy that vitiates the current idea of a supernatural revelation by looking for its specific characteristics to the physical world. by this deplorable fallacy christian theology has blinded the minds of many scientific men to the essential claims of christianity, with immense damage in the arrested development of their religious nature through the scepticism inevitably but needlessly provoked by this great mistake. when elijah proclaims to idolaters that their deity is no god, and, as we read, corroborates his words by calling down fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice, it is reckoned as supernatural revelation. but it is not so reckoned when the sage in the book of proverbs proclaims to a nation of religious formalists the moral character of god: "to do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the lord than sacrifice." this is accounted as ethical teaching, somewhat in advance of the times. a pagan rather than a christian way of thinking is discoverable here. in each of the cases cited the specific character of supernatural revelation is equally evident,--the disclosure of spiritual truth above the natural thought of the natural men to whom it came. the character of any revelation is determined by the character of the truth made known, not by the drapery of circumstances connected with the making known. clothes do not make the man, though coarse or careless people may think so. what belongs to the moral and spiritual order is supernatural to what belongs to the material and physical order. this way of thinking will be forced on common minds by thoughtful observation of common things. animate nature of the lowest rank, as in the grass, is of a higher natural order than inanimate nature in the soil the grass springs from. sentient nature, as in the ox, is of a higher order than the non-sentient in the grass. self-conscious and reflective nature in the man is of a higher order than the selfless and non-reflective nature in his beast of burden. in the composite being of man all these orders of nature coexist, and each higher is supernatural to the nature below it. nature, the comprehensive term for _all that comes into being_, is a hierarchy of natures, rising rank above rank from the lowest to the highest. the highest nature known to us, supernatural to all below it, can only be the moral nature, whose full satisfaction is necessary to the highest satisfaction of a man, and in whose complete development only can be realized in permanency his perfected welfare as a social being. now it is precisely in the progress of moral development that supernatural religion manifests itself as a reality. religion, indeed, is as natural to man as art. but there is religion and religion, as there is art and art--the sexual religion of the primitive semites, the animistic religion of china, the spiritual religion that flowered on the mount of the beatitudes, embryonic religion and religion adult; all, indeed, natural, yet of lower and of higher grade. doubtless, religion of whatever grade outranks all other human activities by its distinctive aspiration to transcend the bounds of space and time and sense, and to link the individual to the universal; and so all religion sounds, feebly or distinctly, the note of the supernatural. but this is the resonant note of the spiritual religion which unfolds in the moral progress of the world. as moral nature is supernatural to the psychical and the physical, so is its consummate bloom of spiritual religion to be ranked as such, relatively to the religions which more or less dimly and blindly are yearning and groping toward the light that never was on sea or land. thus defining the word according to the nature of the thing, supernatural religion, with its corollary of supernatural revelation not as an apparition from without, but as an unfolding from within, is both a fact and a factor in the development of spiritual man. the term _supernatural religion_ has been rightly applied to that system of religious conceptions, ideals, and motives, whose effective culture of the moral nature is attested historically by a moral development superior to the product of any other known religion. whether the greatest saints of christianity are all of them whiter souls than any that can be found among the disciples of any other religion, may be matter for argument. there can be no gainsaying the fact that, of great and lowly together, no other religion shows so many saints, or has so advanced the general moral development in lands where it is widely followed. but its essential character has been obscured, its appeal to man's highest nature foiled, and its power lamed by the wretched fallacy that has transferred its distinctive note of the supernatural from its divine ideals to the physical marvels embedded in the record of its original promulgation, even conditioning its validity and authority upon their reality. such is the false issue which, to the discredit of christianity, theology has presented to science. such is the confusion of ideas that in the light of modern knowledge inevitably blocks the way to a reasonable religious faith in multitudes of minds thereby offended. from this costly error christian theology at length shows signs that it is about to extricate itself.[ ] as to the christian miracles, there can be no reasonable doubt that "mighty works," deemed by many of his contemporaries superhuman, were wrought by jesus. these, whatever they were, must be regarded as the natural effluence of a transcendently endowed life. taking place in the sphere of the senses, they were _a_ revelation of the type seen before and since in the lives of wonder-workers ancient and modern, in whom the power of mind over matter, however astonishing and mysterious, is recognized as belonging to the natural order of things no less than the unexplored antarctic belongs to the globe. but _the_ revelation which he gave to human thought as a new thing, a heavenly vision unprecedented, was in the higher realm of the moral and spiritual life. this was the true supernatural, whose reality and power are separable from all its environment of circumstances, and wholly independent thereof. the characteristic ideals of jesus, his profound consciousness of god, his filial thought of god, his saturation with the conviction of his moral oneness with god,[ ] his realization of brotherhood with the meanest human being, still transcend the common level of natural humanity even among his disciples. as thus transcendent they are supernatural still. till reached and realized, they manifest the fact of a supernatural revelation in that peerless life as plainly as the sun is manifest in the splendor of a cloudless day. in the coming but distant age, when man's spiritual nature, now so embryonic, shall have become adult, it will doubtless so pervade and rule the physical and psychical natures which it inhabits that the distinction between natural and supernatural, so important in the period of its development, will become foreign alike to thought and speech. but until the making of man in the image of god is complete, when the spiritual element in our composite being, now struggling for development, shall be manifest in its ultimate maturity and ascendency as the distinctive and proper nature of humanity, it is of supreme importance for the christian teacher, who would point and urge to the heights of being, to free men's minds of error as to what the real supernatural is. not the fancied disturber of the world's ordered harmonies, but that highest nature which is the moulder, the glory, and the crown of all the lower. imaged to us in the human perfectness of jesus, the ideal son of man, it is revealed as the distinctive inheritance and prize of the humanity that essays to think the thoughts and walk the ways of god. to each of us is it given in germ by our human birth, to be fostered and nourished in converse with the infinite presence that inhabits all things, till its divine possibilities appear in the ultimate "revealing of the sons of god,"[ ] full grown "according to the measure of the stature of the fulness of christ."[ ] footnotes: [ ] "upon the conception of the supernatural as the personal," says professor nash, "apologetics must found the claims of christianity."--_ethics and revelation._ [ ] the words in which jesus expresses this are much more extraordinary and profoundly significant than any of those mighty works of his, the like of which are recorded of the ancient prophets. jesus was conscious of god as living in him, and of himself as living in god, in the unity of the one eternal life. not merely as a man _of_ god, but as a man _in_ god, as no other man has consciously been, does jesus utter such sayings as, "i am the light of the world," "i and my father are one." (see "jesus the ideal man," by the present writer. _the new world_, june, .) [ ] romans viii. . [ ] ephesians iv. . new testament handbooks edited by shailer mathews _professor of new testament history and interpretation, university of chicago_ arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information should state whether address is permanent or not:-- the history of the textual criticism of the new testament prof. marvin r. vincent, professor of new testament exegesis, union theological seminary. [_now ready._ professor vincent's contributions to the study of the new testament rank him among the first american exegetes. his most recent publication is "a critical and exegetical commentary on the epistles to the philippians and to philemon" (_international critical commentary_), which was preceded by a "students' new testament handbook," "word studies in the new testament," and others. the history of the higher criticism of the new testament prof. henry s. nash, professor of new testament interpretation, cambridge divinity school. [_now ready._ of professor nash's "genesis of the social conscience," _the outlook_ said: "the results of professor nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, and often epigrammatic style. the treatment is at once masterful and helpful, and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort." introduction to the books of the new testament prof. b. wisner bacon, professor of new testament interpretation, yale university. [_now ready._ professor bacon's works in the field of old testament criticism include "the triple tradition of exodus," and "the genesis of genesis," a study of the documentary sources of the books of moses. in the field of new testament study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is "the autobiography of jesus," in the _american journal of theology_. the history of new testament times in palestine prof. shailer mathews, professor of new testament history and interpretation, the university of chicago. [_now ready._ _the congregationalist_ says of prof. shailer mathews's recent work, "the social teaching of jesus": "re-reading deepens the impression that the author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre-eminently sane. if, after reading the chapters dealing with jesus' attitude toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets." the life of paul prof. rush rhees, president of the university of rochester. professor rhees is well known from his series of "inductive lessons" contributed to the _sunday school times_. his "outline of the life of paul," privately printed, has had a flattering reception from new testament scholars. the history of the apostolic age dr. c. w. votaw, instructor in new testament literature, the university of chicago. of dr. votaw's "inductive study of the founding of the christian church," _modern church_, edinburgh, says: "no fuller analysis of the later books of the new testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the _founding of the christian church_, by clyde w. votaw. it is well adapted alike for practical and more scholarly students of the bible." the teaching of jesus prof. george b. stevens, professor of systematic theology, yale university. [_now ready._ professor stevens's volumes upon "the johannine theology," "the pauline theology," as well as his recent volume on "the theology of the new testament," have made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in america. his new volume will be among the most important of his works. the biblical theology of the new testament prof. e. p. gould, professor of new testament interpretation, protestant episcopal divinity school, philadelphia. [_now ready._ professor gould's commentaries on the gospel of mark (in the _international critical commentary_) and the epistles to the corinthians (in the _american commentary_) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which are lacking in existing works of the same general aim and scope. the history of christian literature until eusebius prof. j. w. platner, professor of early church history, harvard university. professor platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early christian writers, but will also treat of the history of the new testament canon. others to follow "an excellent series of scholarly, yet concise and inexpensive new testament handbooks."--_christian advocate_, new york. "these books are remarkably well suited in language, style, and price, to all students of the new testament."--_the congregationalist_, boston. * * * * * the macmillan company fifth avenue, new york transcriber's note (significant amendments): p. , 'saltpêtrière' amended to _salpêtrière_. archives <freethought@despammed.com> production notes: a reply to dr lightfoot's essays by walter r. cassels ( -sep- to -jun- ) originally published anonymously in . transcribed by the freethought archives <freethought@despammed.com> a reply to dr lightfoot's essays by the author of "supernatural religion" london introduction. i sincerely rejoice that dr. lightfoot has recovered from his recent illness. of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his republication of the essays on _supernatural religion_ affords decided evidence, and i hope that no refutation of this inference at least may be possible, however little we may agree on other points. it was natural that dr. lightfoot should not be averse to preserving the more serious part of these essays, the preparation of which cost him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to many. i cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume, which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious argument. a material part of the volume is composed of such matter. i cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed. personally i am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction, and it is with heretical amusement that i contemplate the large part which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. in the first moment of irritation, i can well understand that hard hitting, even below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection, is at once an error and a compliment for which i was not prepared. anything to prevent readers from taking up _supernatural religion_: any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements. elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting. in the later editions of my work, i removed everything that seemed likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. whilst dr. lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of his essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the complete edition of supernatural religion. could there be more palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of his objections? it is not too much to say that in no part of these essays has dr. lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental proposition of _supernatural religion_. he has elaborately criticised notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details: but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and the reality of alleged divine revelation, his volume is an absolute blank. bampton lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have frankly admitted that the christian argument must be reconstructed. they have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable, crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of dr lightfoot's essays. the substantial correctness of the main conclusions of _supernatural religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the reply to its reasoning. the eagerness with which dr. lightfoot and others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable. those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to be solved really is will not get any help from his volume. the republication of these essays, however, has almost forced upon me the necessity of likewise republishing the reply i gave at the time of their appearance. the first essay appeared in the _fortnightly review_, and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _supernatural religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. i cannot hope that readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference for those interested in the discussion. i add brief notes upon those essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my statements. of course, the full discussion of dr. lightfoot's arguments must still be sought in the volumes of _supernatural religion_, but i trust that i may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his allegations and their bearing on my argument. i have likewise thought it right to add the conclusions, without any alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the first time, having examined all the evidence, i was in a position to wind up the case. this is all the more necessary as they finally show the inadequacy of dr. lightfoot's treatment. but i have still more been moved to append these conclusions in order to put them within easier reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not contain them. dr. lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. i do not think that i am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but i may distinctly say that i have always held that arguments upon very serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. i leave the bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and i take my stand upon the basis of reason and not of reputation. contents i. a reply to dr. lightfoot's first essay on "supernatural religion" ii. the silence of eusebius--the ignatian epistles iii. polycarp of smyrna iv. papias of hierapolis v. melito of sardis--claudius apollinaris--polycrates vi. the churches of gaul vii. tatian's "diatessaron" viii. conclusions [endnotes] index. i. _a reply to dr. lightfoot's first essay on "supernatural religion."_ [endnote : ] the function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. it is scarcely possible that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained application. no honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes which can be rectified; and, for myself, i may say that i desire nothing more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which may be fallacious. reluctant as i must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of silent attention which i think should be maintained by writers in the face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of the rev. dr. lightfoot's article upon _supernatural religion_ in the december number of the "contemporary review." whilst delivering severe lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens, falls very short of his precept. the example of moderation presented to me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone i fail to recognise any of the [greek: epieikeia] which mr. matthew arnold so justly admires. i shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and i trust that i shall not scant the courtesy with which i desire to treat dr. lightfoot, whose ability i admire and whose position i understand. i should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his attack at all, but that i perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general detraction. the device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be pronounced original. in religious as well as legal controversy, the threadbare maxim: "a bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still is. if it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with which canon lightfoot reproaches _supernatural religion_ were well founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not weaken the central argument, and after the apologist's ingenuity has been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of supernatural religion would not be made one whit more secure. it is, however, because i recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked" which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change the aspect of reasoning, that i have thought it worth my while at once to reply. i shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to sap the strength of my position, dr. lightfoot has only exposed the weakness of his own. dr. lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most critics' are agreed in maintaining." he will probably find that "most critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many points, from most critics. the first and most vehement attack made upon me by dr. lightfoot is regarding "a highly important passage of irenaeus," containing a reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers that i am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy" would decide against my reasoning. i had found fault with tischendorf in the text, and with dr. westcott in a note, for inserting the words "say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, in the total absence of the original, that these special words were supplementary and introduced by the translator. i shall speak of tischendorf presently, and for the moment i confine myself to dr. westcott. irenaeus (_adv. haer._ v. , ) makes a statement as to what "the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the millennial kingdom, and he then proceeds (§ ) with indirect construction, indicating a reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in question, in which a saying similar to john xiv. is introduced. this passage is claimed by tischendorf as a quotation from the work of papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the bishop of hierapolis. dr. westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: "in addition to the gospels of st. matthew and st. mark, papias appears to have been acquainted with the gospel of st. john;" [ : ] and in a note on an earlier page: "the passage quoted by irenaeus from 'the elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of interpretation;" [ : ] and then follows the passage in which the indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of "they taught." [ : ] neither dr. westcott nor dr. lightfoot makes the slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing this testimony, which dr. lightfoot describes as having "a vital bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth gospel." the reader who had not the work of irenaeus before him to estimate the justness of the ascription of this passage to papias, and who was not acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements, understand the real position of the case. now the facts are as follows: routh [ : ] conjectured that the whole passage in irenaeus was derived from the work of papias, and in this he was followed by dorner, [ : ] who practically introduced the suggestion to the critics of germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom i remember, except tischendorf and perhaps professor hofstede de groot, now seriously supports this view. zeller, [ : ] in his celebrated treatise on the external testimony for the fourth gospel, argued against dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there is not the slightest certainty that irenaeus did not himself interpolate the words from the fourth gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is no evidence whatever that papias knew that work. anger, [ : ] discussing the evidence of the presbyters quoted by irenaeus in our gospels, refers to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as routh conjectures, be from the work of papias; but in the text he points out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters" should be used. he says, "sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, utrum ipse loquatur irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." meyer, [ : ] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether these presbyters, whom he does not connect with papias, derived the saying from the gospel or from tradition. riggenbach [ : ] alludes to it merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with papias, and only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the first half of the second century. professor hofstede de groot, [ : ] the translator of tischendorf's work into dutch, and his warm admirer, brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the circle of papias or to that father himself. hilgenfeld [ : ] distinctly separates the presbyters of this passage from papias, and asserts that they may have lived in the second half of the second century. luthardt, [ : ] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth gospel, does not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of papias, but merely argues that the presbyters to whom irenaeus was indebted for it formed a circle to which polycarp and papias belonged. zahn [ : ] does not go beyond him in this. dr. davidson, while arguing that "it is impossible to show that the four (gospels) were current as early as a.d. ," refers to this passage, and says: "it is precarious to infer with tischendorf either that irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters from papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "is it not evident that irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [ : ] in another place dr. davidson still more directly says: "the second proof is founded on a passage in irenaeus where the father, professing to give an account of the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the lord said, "in my father's house are many mansions."' here it is equally uncertain whether a work of papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and whether that father did not insert something of his own, or something borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the gospel." [ : ] with these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his while to refer to this passage at all. neither in considering the external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth gospel, nor in discussing the question whether papias was acquainted with it, do apologetic writers like bleek, ebrard, olshausen, guericke, kirchhofer, thiersch, or tholuck, or impartial writers like credner, de wette, gfrörer, lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so indirect an argument for his knowledge of the gospel as the statement of eusebius that papias made use of the first epistle of john. indeed, on neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and whilst so many conclude positively that papias was not acquainted with the fourth gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. those who go further and urge the supposed use of the epistle as testimony in favour of his also knowing the gospel would only too gladly have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken from the work of papias. it would not be permissible to assume that any of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of zeller in which the quotation is discussed. this is an instance in which dr. lightfoot has the "misfortune to dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in maintaining." i have no objection to his disputing anything. all that i suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there is anything in dispute, which, i submit, general readers could scarcely discover from the statements of dr. westcott or the remarks of dr. lightfoot. now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what i objected to in others, i may have gone to the other extreme. but although i perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., i did what was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, a fact which must have been patent, as dr. lightfoot says, to a "fairly trained schoolboy." i doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [greek: einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the construction. that i did not myself mistake the point is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that i do not make any objection to the translations of tischendorf and dr. westcott, beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and that i proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the work of papias, which would have been mere waste of time had i intended to maintain that irenaeus quoted direct from the gospel. an observation made to me regarding my note on dr. westcott, showed me that i had been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. i immediately withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different from what i had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which dr. lightfoot has made such eager use, i myself at once recast it as well as i could within the limits at my command, [ : ] and this was already published before dr. lightfoot's criticism appeared, and before i had any knowledge of his articles. [ : ] with regard to tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is practically admitted in the fullest way by dr. lightfoot himself. "tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der herr den ausspruch gethan.' he might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the german idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words were not irenaeus's own without this addition." writing of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "but he has not altered any idea which the original contains." [ : ] i affirm, on the contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he has warped the whole argument, for dr. lightfoot has mercifully omitted to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct assertion "that irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, those high authorities of papias." the german apologist, therefore, not giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of most critics, after fully rendering the construction of irenaeus by the "habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high authorities of papias," without a hint that these words are his own. [ : ] my argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived from the presbyters of papias, or from his book, and that it is not a quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these words, but one made more directly by irenaeus--not directly from the gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing more than the exegesis of his own day. the second point of canon lightfoot's attack is in connection with a discussion of the date of celsus. dr. lightfoot quotes a passage from origen given in my work, [ : ] upon which he comments as follows: "on the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that origen's impression concerning the date of celsus had meanwhile been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him as a contemporary.' unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. origen does not say 'celsus _has promised_,' but 'celsus _promises_ ([greek: epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, origen's knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. and, again, he does not say 'if he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'if he _did not write_ as he undertook to do' ([greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]); nor 'if he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'if he _commenced and finished_' ([greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). thus origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with the earlier passages in his work." [ : ] these remarks, and the triumphant exclamation of dr. lightfoot at the close that here "an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey a totally wrong impression of the case. the argument regarding this passage in origen occurs in a controversy between tischendorf and volkmar, the particulars of which i report; [ : ] and to avoid anticipation of the point, i promise to give the passage in its place, which i subsequently do. all the complimentary observations which dr. lightfoot makes upon the translation actually fall upon the head of his brother apologist, tischendorf, whose rendering, as he so much insists upon it, i merely reproduce. the manner in which tischendorf attacks volkmar in connection with this passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself by dr. lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick of his precursor's scolding. volkmar had paraphrased origen's words in a way of which his critic disapproved, and tischendorf comments as follows: "but here again we have to do with nothing else than a completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's poverty. for the assertion derived from the close of the work of origen rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. the words of origen to his patron ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here i must give the german]: "'wenn dass celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in seinem gegen das christenthum gerichteten und von origenes widerlegten buche) noch eine andere schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.' 'wenn er nun diese zweite schrift trotz seines versprechens nicht geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen acht büchern auf seine schrift geantwortet zu haben. wenn er aber auch jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_], 'so treib das buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'" &c. [ : ] now this translation of tischendorf is not made carelessly, but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words of origen, and correcting the version of volkmar; and he insists upon these tenses not only by referring to the greek of these special phrases, but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of volkmar. [ : ] whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of origen there may be here, therefore, are due to tischendorf, who may be considered as good a scholar as dr. lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist. instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated," however, as canon lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of this or any other version of origen's words; and, in fact, the point is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than my own. i point out [ : ] that origen evidently knows nothing of his adversary: and i add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became considerably modified." i then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons. in the earlier portion of his first book (i. ), origen has heard that his celsus is the epicurean of the reign of hadrian and later, but a little further on (i. ), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is the same celsus who wrote against magic, which celsus the epicurean actually did. in the fourth book (iv. ) he expresses uncertainty as to whether the epicurean celsus had composed the work against christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as a contemporary, for, as i again mention, volkmar and others assert, on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other considerations, that celsus really was a contemporary of origen. i proceed to argue that, even if celsus were the epicurean friend of lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date; but, on the contrary, that so far from being an epicurean, the celsus attacked by origen evidently was a neo-platonist. this, and the circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against christians, leads to the conclusion, i point out, that he must be dated about the beginning of the third century. my argument, in short, scarcely turns upon the passage in origen at all, and that which renders it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that celsus never mentions the gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors, which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of divine revelation. i do not intend to bandy many words with canon lightfoot regarding translations. nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural context to an isolated position in quotation. such a personal matter as dr. lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, i feel cannot interest the readers of this review. i am quite ready to accept correction even from an opponent where i am wrong, but i am quite content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. the 'higher criticism,' in which dr. lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. [ : ] i am extremely obliged to dr. lightfoot for pointing out two clerical errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his apologetic zeal. the first is in reference to what he describes as "a highly important question of biblical criticism." in speaking, _en passant_, of a passage in john v. , , in connection with the "age of miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally omitted from vol. i. p. , line , and the sentence should read, "and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [ : ] in vol. ii. p. , after again mentioning the rejection of the passage, i proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have originally stood in the text, because v. indicates the existence of such a context. the second error is in vol. ii. p. , line , in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my ms. since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as dr. lightfoot points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation. i can assure him that i do not in the slightest degree grudge him the full benefit of the argument that the fourth gospel never once distinguishes john the baptist from the apostle john by the addition [greek: ho baptistês]. [ : ] i turn, however, to a more important matter. canon lightfoot attacks me in no measured terms for a criticism upon dr. westcott's mode of dealing with a piece of information regarding basilides. he says-- "dr. westcott writes of basilides as follows:-- "'at the same time he appealed to the authority of glaucias, who, as well as st. mark, was "an interpreter of st. peter."' ('canon,' p. ) "the inverted commas are given here as they appear in dr. westcott's book. it need hardly be said that dr. westcott is simply illustrating the statement of basilides that glaucias was an interpreter of st. peter by the similar statement of papias and others that st. mark was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information, one would suppose. on this passage, however, our author remarks-- "'now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, in the introduction after "glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as st. mark, was_ an interpreter of st. peter." the words in italics are the gratuitous addition of canon westcott himself, and can only have been inserted for one of two purposes--( ) to assert the fact that glaucias was actually an interpreter of peter, as tradition represented mark to be; or ( ) to insinuate to unlearned readers that basilides himself acknowledged mark as well as glaucias as the interpreter of peter. we can hardly suppose the first to have been the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal of basilides to the uncanonical glaucias, by coupling with it the allusion to mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the apologist.' ('s.r.' i. p. ) "dr. westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. it stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. i only call attention to the fact that our author has removed dr. westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of." [ : ] in order to make this matter clear, i must venture more fully to quote dr. westcott's statements regarding basilides. dr. westcott says: "since basilides lived on the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of christian doctrine besides the canonical books. the belief in divine inspiration was still fresh and real; and eusebius relates that he set up imaginary prophets, barcabbas and barcoph (parchor)--'names to strike terror into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar views. at the same time he appealed to the authority of glaucias, who, as well as st. mark, was 'an interpreter of st. peter;' [ : ] and he also made use of certain 'traditions of matthias,' which claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the saviour.' [ : ] it appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a 'life of christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or 'the philosophy of christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them as scripture. for, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony of basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. in the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain references to the gospels of st. matthew, st. luke, and st. john, &c." and in a note dr. westcott adds, "the following examples will be sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [ : ] not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary statements, for a full criticism of which i must beg the reader to be good enough to refer to _supernatural religion_, ii. pp. - . setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel" of basilides--to which dr. westcott gives the fanciful names of a "life of christ," or "philosophy of christianity," without a shadow of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance, that the statement that basilides "admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon a sentence in the work attributed to hippolytus, to the effect that, after his generation, all things regarding the saviour--according to the _followers_ of basilides--occurred in the same way as they are written in the gospels. again, it could scarcely be supposed by an ordinary reader that the assertion that basilides used the "canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels in his day--"as scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of his writings which remain there are certain references" to those gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages in an epitome by hippolytus of the views of the school of basilides, not ascribed directly to basilides himself, but introduced by a mere indefinite [greek: phêsi]. [ : ] why, i might enquire in the vein of dr. lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from basilides, that the gnosticism described by hippolytus is not that of basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that period, and notably hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting, as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed by his later followers? as dr. lightfoot evidently highly values the testimony of luthardt, i will quote the words of that staunch apologist to show that, in this, i do not merely represent the views of a heterodox school. in discussing the supposed quotations from the fourth gospel, which dr. westcott represents as "certain references" to it by basilides himself, luthardt says: "but to this is opposed the consideration that, as we know from irenaeus, &c., the original system of basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the 'philosophumena' is pantheistic. we must recognise that hippolytus, in the 'philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples, so that from these quotations only the use of the johannine gospel in the school of basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the part of the founder himself." [ : ] it is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the basilides regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did not know our gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work, supplemented by traditions from glaucias and matthias; but, as if the heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity, the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before us. dr. westcott conveys the information contained in the single sentence of clement of alexandria, [greek: kathaper ho basileidês kan glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton petrou hermênea], [ : ] in the following words; and i quote the statement exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order to show the inverted commas upon which dr. lightfoot lays so much stress as having been removed. in mentioning this fact canon westcott says: "at the same time he appealed to the authority of glaucias, who, as well as st. mark, was 'an interpreter of st. peter.' [ : ] now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the passage quoted by dr. lightfoot. the positive form given to the words of clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as st. mark," seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to basilides which i do not find in the original. i confess that i fail to see any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as dr. lightfoot does, let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after the direct citation from dr. westcott's work, in which those inverted commas are given. the words they mark are a quotation from clement, and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well indicated by being the only words not put in italics. the fact is, that dr. lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. he has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. it is by this wonderful illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [ : ] it rather exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article. dr. lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "dr. westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself." it would have been much better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such advocacy. if anything could check just or generous expression, it would be the tone adopted by dr. lightfoot; but nevertheless i again say, in the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any other have i had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt motives" to a man like dr. westcott, whose single-mindedness i recognise, and for whose earnest character i feel genuine respect. the utmost that i have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in particular, he sees facts, i consider, through a dogmatic medium, and unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which should be more impartially made. dr. lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the arguments of my adversaries. "the author," he says, "does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [ : ] i am exceedingly indebted to dr. lightfoot for having had compassion upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me "samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists which i have ignored. the first of these with which he favours me is in connection with an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to polycarp, ignatius being spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier passage he is represented as dead. dr. lightfoot reproaches me:-- "why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of information, that when the latin version (the greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated into the original language, [greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears?" [ : ] as dr. lightfoot does not apparently attach much weight to my replies, i venture to give my reasons for not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, i hope, may find more favour with him. dr. donaldson, in his able work on "christian literature and doctrine," says: "in the ninth chapter ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the philippians of patience ... in the thirteenth chapter polycarp requests information with regard to 'ignatius and those with him.' these words occur only in the latin translation of the epistle. to get rid of the difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words 'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the greek [greek: peri ton met' autou]. and then the words are supposed to mean, 'concerning ignatius (of whose death i heard, but of which i wish particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' but even the greek could not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is no reason to impugn the latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [ : ] dr. lightfoot, however, does impugn it. it is apparently his habit to impugn translations. he accuses the ancient latin translator of freely handling the tenses of a greek text which the critic himself has never seen. here it is dr. lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock of grammar." the next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists which i have ignored is as follows:-- "again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by dr. westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of papias' own words), that this father's object, in his 'exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written documents? this view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of papias to the written gospels; and its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main question at issue." [ : ] i reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of papias himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. my object was the much more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether papias affords any evidence with regard to our gospels which could warrant our believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they are the principal testimony. even if it could be proved, which it cannot be, that papias actually had "written documents" before him, the cause of our gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch as it could not be shown that these documents were our gospels; and the avowed preference of papias for tradition over books, so clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written documents with which he was acquainted. however important such a discussion may appear to dr. lightfoot in the absence of other evidence, it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of divine revelation. the next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" given by dr. lightfoot is the following: "again, when he reproduces the tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of hegesippus against st. paul, and quotes the often-quoted passage from stephanus gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by st. paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? since, according to the tübingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which we now of the opinions of hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [ : ] i reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that i merely mention the anti-pauline interpretation incidentally in a single sentence, [ : ] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation in cor. ii. , i proceed: "this, however, does not concern us here, and we have merely to examine 'the saying of the lord,' which hegesippus opposes to the passage, 'blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in fact, the sole object of my quotation from stephanus gobarus? why does he not also state that i distinctly refer to tischendorf's denial that hegesippus was opposed to paul? and why does he not further state that, instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the anti-pauline feelings of hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain? it was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling against paul entertained by a large section of the early church. what i have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the acts of the apostles. "and again," says dr. lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored weightier lines of reasoning, "in the elaborate examination of justin martyr's evangelical quotations ... our author frequently refers to dr. westcott's book to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are discussed at great length. why, then, does he not once mention dr. westcott's argument founded on the looseness of justin martyr's quotations from the old testament as throwing some light on the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the gospels? a reader fresh from the perusal of _supernatural religion_ will have his eyes opened as to the character of justin's mind when he turns to dr. westcott's book, and finds how justin interweaves, misnames, and misquotes passages from the old testament. it cannot be said that these are unimportant points." [ : ] now the fact is, that in the first pages of my examination of justin martyr i do not once refer in my text to dr. westcott's work; and when i finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention. [ : ] dr. westcott, whilst maintaining that justin's quotations are derived from our gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the very numerous citations in his writings "does justin profess to give the exact words recorded in the 'memoirs.'" [ : ] the reason why i do not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of dr. westcott here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note quoted by dr. lightfoot, [ : ] which sentence he has thought it right to omit. the note is as follows, and the sentence to which i refer is put in italics: "for the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader may be referred to canon westcott's work 'on the canon,' pp. - . dr. westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that justin's quotations are different from the text of our gospels, but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _it is evident that so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no proof of identity is possible_." [ : ] it will be observed that although i do not discuss dr. westcott's views, i pointedly refer those who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his work. let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the writings of the fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing gospels, which can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous contents of christianity. any argument that, although justin, for instance, never once names any of our gospels, and out of very numerous quotations of sayings of jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which has an exact parallel in those gospels, yet he may have made use of our gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the old testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of divine revelation. from the point of view of such an enquiry, i probably go much further into the examination of justin's "memoirs" than was at all necessary. space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances, regarding which dr. lightfoot says: "in every instance which i have selected"--and to which i have replied--"these omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue." [ : ] if dr. lightfoot had devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue" really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. if such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question may easily be understood. dr. lightfoot, however, evidently seems to suppose that i can be charged with want of candour and of fulness, because i do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have rejected them as useless. he again accuses me, in connection with the fourth gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic" writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and impartial." "once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [ : ] i confess that i find it somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which i am said to "make capital" and those which dr. lightfoot characterises as "their main arguments," if i am to judge by the "samples" of them which he gives me. for instance, [ : ] he asks why, when asserting that the synoptics clearly represent the ministry of jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his preaching as confined to galilee and jerusalem, whilst the fourth gospel distributes the teaching of jesus between galilee, samaria, and jerusalem, makes it extend over three years, and refers to three passovers spent by jesus at jerusalem: "why then," he asks, "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as matt. xiii. (comp. luke xiii. ), 'o jerusalem, jerusalem ... _how often_ would i have gathered thy children together'? here the expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate other visits, probably several visits, to jerusalem, which are not recorded in the synoptic gospels themselves. and it may be suggested also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of st. luke, 'i do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ i shall be perfected,' 'i must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day following_,' points to the very duration of our lord's ministry, as indicated by the fourth gospel. if so, the coincidence is the more remarkable because it does not appear that st. luke himself, while wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical import." [ : ] now it might have struck dr. lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry into the reality of divine revelation were obliged, in order to escape charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task; and "if they should be written every one, i suppose that even the world itself could not contain all the books that should be written." it is very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his work? i have only advanced objections against the johannine authorship of the fourth gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the explanations offered. let me now turn to more important instances. dr. lightfoot asks: "why, when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the hebraic character of the fourth gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that the whole texture of the language the fourth gospel is hebraic?" [ : ] now my statements with regard to the language of the apocalypse and fourth gospel are as follows. of the apocalypse i say: "the language in which the book is written is the most hebraistic greek of the new testament;" [ : ] and further on: "the barbarous hebraistic greek and abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of galilee." [ : ] of the gospel i say: "instead of the hebraistic greek and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and ignorant [ : ] fisherman of galilee, we find, in the fourth gospel, the purest and least hebraistic greek of any of the gospels (some parts of the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [ : ] in another place i say: "the language in which the gospel is written, as we have already mentioned, is much less hebraic than that of the other gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the gospel according to luke, and its hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with hellenistic greek; but its composition is distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the gospels." [ : ] i believe that i do not say another word as to the texture of the language of the fourth gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost wholly limited to the comparative quality of the greek of the fourth gospel, on the one hand, and the apocalypse and synoptics on the other, and that they do not exclude hebraisms. the views expressed might be supported by numberless authorities. as dr. lightfoot accuses me of "wholly ignoring" the results at which luthardt and others have arrived, i will quote what luthardt says of the two works: "the difference of the _language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, of course, in a high degree remarkable ... as regards _grammar_, the gospel is written in correct, the apocalypse in incorrect greek." he argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, and that from the nature of the composition the author of the apocalypse wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written otherwise. "the errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient prophetic style. presently he proceeds: "if, then, on the one hand, the apocalypse is written in worse greek and less correctly than its author was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the gospel is not in too good greek to be credited to a born jew and palestinian." luthardt maintains "that the style of the gospel betrays the born jew, and certainly not the greek," but the force which he intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf between the gospel and the apocalypse is not impassable." [ : ] this result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the hebraic character of the apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different from my representation. take again the opinion of so eminent an apologist as bleek: "the language of the apocalypse in its whole character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents grosser incorrectness than any other book of the new testament, whilst the language of the gospel is certainly not pure greek, but is beyond comparison more grammatically correct." [ : ] i am merely replying, to the statements of dr. lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding the language of the fourth gospel, or i might produce very different arguments and authorities, but i may remark that the critical dilemma which i have represented, in reviewing the fourth gospel, is not merely dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the apocalypse on the one hand and the gospel on the other. space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [ : ] dr. lightfoot says-- "if by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of sychar and shechem), [ : ] omitting altogether to notice others." in a note dr. lightfoot adds:-- "travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify sychar with the village bearing the arabic name askar. this fact is not mentioned by our author. he says moreover, 'it is admitted that there was no such place (as sychar, [greek: suchár]), and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _this is altogether untrue_. others besides 'apologists' point to passages in the talmud which speak of 'the well of suchar (or sochar or sichar);' see neubauer, 'la géographie du talmud,' p. f. our author refers in his note to an article by delitzsch, ('_zeitschr. j. luth. theol._,' , p. f.) _he cannot have read the article, for these talmudic references are its main purport_." [ : ] i may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which i have taken the liberty of putting in italics. if it be possible for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers of the "contemporary review," at least, for this style of criticism, to which, i doubt not, they are as little accustomed as i am myself. there is no satisfying dr. lightfoot. i give him references, and he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;" i do not give references, and he gives me the lie. i refer to the article of delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he rejects the identification of sychar with sichem, and apparently because i do not quote the whole study dr. lightfoot courteously asserts that i cannot have read it. [ : ] my statement [ : ] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place as sychar--i ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit anything"--but i thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty," i had sufficiently excepted apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are advanced by them for that purpose. i mention that the conjecture which identifies sychar and sichem is rejected by some, refer to credner's supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a secretary in writing down the gospel from the dictation of the apostle, and that sichem is meant, and i state the "nickname" hypothesis of hengstenberg and others. it is undeniable that, with the exception of some vague references in the talmud to a somewhat similar, but not identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place bearing, or having borne, the designation of sychar is known. the ordinary apologetic theory, as dr. lightfoot may find "in any common source of information,"--dr. smith's "dictionary of the bible," for instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "sychar was either a name applied to the town of shechem, or it was an independent place." this authority, however, goes clean against dr. lightfoot's assertion, for it continues: "the first of these alternatives is now almost universally accepted." lightfoot [ : ] considered sychar a mere alteration of the name sichem, both representing the same place. he found a reference in the talmud to "_ain socar_," and with great hesitation he associated the name with sychar. "may we not venture" to render it "the well of sychar"? and after detailed extracts and explanations he says: "and now let the reader give us his judgment as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation with our 'well of sychar.' it may be disputed on either side." wieseler, who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of lightfoot, argues: "in the first place, there can be no doubt that by [greek: suchar] sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "regarding this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." he totally rejects the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation, which he says is "unprecedented." he therefore concludes that in [greek: suchar] we have _another_ name for sichem. he merely submits this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader," [ : ] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. lightfoot and wieseler are substantially followed by olshausen, [ : ] de wette, [ : ] hug, [ : ] bunsen, [ : ] riggenbach, [ : ] godet, [ : ] and others. bleek, [ : ] in spite of the arguments of delitzsch and ewald, and their talmudic researches, considers that the old town of sichem is meant. delitzsch, [ : ] ewald, [ : ] lange, [ : ] meyer, [ : ] and others think that sychar was near to, but distinct from, sichem. lücke [ : ] is very undecided. he recognises the extraordinary difference in the name sychar. he does not favourably receive lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned in the talmud to sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of sichem into sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such an explanation. ewald condemns the "talmudische studien" of delitzsch as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that sychar cannot be the same place as sichem, he points out that the site of the _valley of the_ well of the talmud is certainly doubtful. [ : ] he explains his own views, however, more clearly in another place:-- "that this (sychar) cannot be the large, ancient sikhem, which, at the time when the gospel was written, was probably already generally called _neapolis_ in greek writings, has been already stated; it is the place still called with an altered arabic name _al 'askar_, east of naplûs. it is indeed difficult to prove that sychar could stand for sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other reason, and the addition [greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any more than in xi. , so large and generally known a town as sikhem. or flavia neapolis." [ : ] mr. sanday, [ : ] of whose able work dr. lightfoot directly speaks, says:-- "the name sychar is not the common one, sichem, but is a mock title (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the jews. [ : ] this is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. it is not quite certain that the name sychar has this force, but the hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... it is not, however, by any means improbable that sychar may represent, not sichem, but the modern village askar, which is somewhat nearer to jacob's well." to quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," dr. farrar says: "from what the name sychar is derived is uncertain. the word [greek: legomenos] in st. john seems to imply a sobriquet. it may be 'a lie,' 'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' sychar may possibly have been a village nearer the well than sichem, on the site of the village now called el askar." [ : ] as dr. lightfoot specially mentions neubauer, his opinion may be substantially given in a single sentence: "la mischna mentionne un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'en-sokher,' qui est peut-être le sychar de l'evangile." he had a few lines before said: "il est donc plus logique de ne pas identifier sychar avec sichem." [ : ] now, with regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect sychar with el askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from a "common source of information:"-- "on the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of this identification. _'askar_ begins with the letter 'ain, which sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... these considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading to any conclusion on the identity of sychar, which seems hopeless, as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [ : ] mr. grove is very right. i have been careful only to quote from writers who are either "apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. is it not perfectly clear that no place of the name of sychar can be reasonably identified? the case, in fact, simply stands thus:--as the gospel mentions a town called sychar, apologists maintain that there must have been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for it. it is certain, however, that even in the days of st. jerome there was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations. with regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating," canon lightfoot omits to say that i as fully and candidly refer to those who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support me. it is very possible, considering the number of these references, that i may have committed some errors, and i can only say that i shall very thankfully receive from dr. lightfoot any corrections which he may be good enough to point out. instead of intimidation and browbeating, my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them discussed. it is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made acquainted with the true state of the case. as dr. mozley rightly and honestly says: "the majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as they appear to find it." [ : ] i shall not here follow dr. lightfoot into his general remarks regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall i proceed, in this article, to discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the supreme being. i am almost inclined to think that i can have the pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before coming to a close. when i read the curiously modified statement that i have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal father, or a moral governor, or even in a personal god," it seems clear to me that the _supernatural religion_ about which dr. lightfoot has been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own imagination. that work cannot possibly have contained, for instance, the chapter on "anthropomorphic divinity," [ : ] in which, on the contrary, i studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such a "personal god" as he means. in no way inconsistent with that chapter are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic jewish divinity a supreme being manifested in the operation of invariable laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and security. if dr. lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the last page of my work. dr. lightfoot, again, refers to mr. mill's "three essays on religion," but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. i confess that i do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and i hope that, hereafter, i may have an opportunity of explaining what they are; but i am surprised that dr. lightfoot has failed to observe how singularly that great thinker supports the general results of _supernatural religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement almost in words. if dr. lightfoot had studied mill a little more closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing: "obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. it is somewhat strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work should be devoted to this needless task." [ : ] now my argument in the first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. having shown that they are so, and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the amount of evidence requisite to establish it, i proceed to examine the evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that, although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took place. mr. mill clearly supports me in this course. he states the main principle of my argument thus: "a revelation, therefore, cannot be proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of supernatural facts. and we have to consider, whether it is possible to prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to prove them." [ : ] mr. mill decides that it is possible to prove the occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says: "against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, the positive evidences of miracles. and i have already admitted that this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception equally certain with the rule." [ : ] mr. mill's opinion of the evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with my results: "but the evidence of miracles, at least to protestant christians, is not, in our day, of this cogent description. it is not the evidence of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. and even in the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be little room for doubt. on the contrary, the recorded miracles are, in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [ : ] it is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that i enter into an examination of the four gospels, as the chief witnesses for miracles. to those who have already ascertained the frivolous nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should represent such a process as useless. in endeavouring to place me on the forks of a dilemma, in fact, dr. lightfoot has betrayed that he altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical enquiry. instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the remaining documents of the new testament. i foresaw, and myself to some degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [ : ] but my work being already bulky enough, i reserved to another volume the completion of the enquiry. i cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion of a great and profoundly important subject. dr. lightfoot is too able and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me, it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to refute my reasoning. i have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid fair fight, and i feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who, differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due even to an enemy. dr. lightfoot will not find me inattentive to courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever he may think, i promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully to follow every serious line of argument than the author of _supernatural religion_. ii. _the silence of eusebius--the ignatian epistles._ [endnote : ] this work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but both in this country and in america and elsewhere it has been subjected to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of opinion, that i may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to review some of my reviewers. i must first, however, beg leave to express my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its completion. i have to thank others, who, differing totally from my conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must necessarily have offended them, and i can only say that, whilst such a course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not diminished the attention with which i have followed their arguments. there are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of argument of this work which i desire to correct. some critics have objected that, if i had succeeded in establishing the proposition advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. now i contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to completeness in dealing with the subject. the preliminary affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently incredible. the counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. it is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry into the evidence for the gospels which occupies the second and third parts. indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ... the second point to which i desire to refer is a statement which has frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, i endeavour to prove that the four canonical gospels were not written until the end of the second century. this error is of course closely connected with that which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. the fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the gospels. the evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and truth. this is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as evidence. in a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for the canonical gospels falls very far short even of ordinary requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of serious consideration. it has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special gospels, i admit that gospels very similar must early have been in existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief as the canonical gospels: consequently that i merely change, without shaking, the witnesses. those who advance this argument, however, totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. what such objectors urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons, equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. i venture to say that no one who advances the argument to which i am referring can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the relation of miracles to the order of nature. the last of these general objections to which i need now refer is the statement, that the difficulty with regard to the gospels commences precisely where my examination ends, and that i am bound to explain how, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as irenaeus. my reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this. no one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment regard the canonical position of any gospel at the end of that century either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. that which concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but the beginning of the first century. even if we took the statements of irenaeus and later fathers, like the alexandrian clement, tertullian and origen, about the gospels, they are absolutely without value except as personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are shown. of the earlier history of those gospels there is not a distinct trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses for miracles. after having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced against this work, i venture to express strengthened conviction of the truth of its conclusions. the best and most powerful reasons which able divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main argument have, i submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by inference, shown it to be unassailable. very many of those who have professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have shown that the church has no artillery capable of making a practicable breach in the rationalistic stronghold. i say this solely in reference to the argument which i have taken upon myself to represent, and in no sense of my own individual share in its maintenance. i must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and official zeal are capable. i am sincerely obliged to professor lightfoot and dr. westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my book. i had myself directly attacked the views of dr. westcott, and of course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in reply; and i am not surprised at the vigour with which dr. lightfoot has assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, although i may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. in spite of hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main argument, and i consider that every point yet objected to by dr. lightfoot, or indicated by dr. westcott, might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position. these objections, i may say, refer solely to details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render it worth while once for all to meet it in detail. the first point to which i shall refer is an elaborate argument by dr. lightfoot regarding the "silence of eusebius." [ : ] i had called attention to the importance of considering the silence of the fathers, under certain conditions; [ : ] and i might, omitting his curious limitation, adopt dr. lightfoot's opening comment upon this as singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "in one province more especially, relating to the external evidences for the gospels, silence occupies a prominent place." dr. lightfoot proposes to interrogate this "mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous." i might again agree with him, but that unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for the gospels. such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only the eloquence of--silence. i have not yet met with the argument anywhere that, because none of the early fathers quote our canonical gospels, or say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and authoritative. dr. lightfoot's argument from silence is, for the present at least, limited to eusebius. the point on which the argument turns is this: after examining the whole of the extant writings of the early fathers, and finding them a complete blank as regards the canonical gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, i supplement this, in the case of hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, by the inference that, as eusebius does not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the gospels, they actually did not contain any. but before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main argument of my work. the evident labour which professor lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. dr. lightfoot says, after quoting the passages in which i appeal to the silence of eusebius:-- "this indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to be unsound. a wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he piled up his fabric to this height. this our author has altogether neglected to do." [ : ] towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:-- "if they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in _supernatural religion_ has crumbled to pieces." [ : ] i do not doubt that dr. lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the representations made in the above passages are a very strange exaggeration. i am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and strength in attacking points to which i attach no importance whatever, and which in themselves have scarcely any value. when writers, after an amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, proved that i have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it was. now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument which is based upon the silence of eusebius is an inference regarding some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be withdrawn without affecting the case. the object of my investigation is to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers regarding our gospels. in the fragments which remain of the works of three writers, hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, i do not find any evidence of acquaintance with these gospels,--the works mentioned by papias being, i contend, different from the existing gospels attributed to matthew and mark. whether i am right or not in this does not affect the present discussion. it is an unquestioned fact that eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers contained any reference to, or information about, the gospels, nor have we any statement from any other author to that effect. the objection of dr. lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of eusebius warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was the purpose of eusebius to record. to give dr. lightfoot's statements, which i am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose that i abandon eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? simply as complete as it well could be: hegesippus, papias, and dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the gospels. the reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement dr. lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _supernatural religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has asserted. we may now proceed to consider dr. lightfoot's argument itself. he carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared intention of eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of the fathers, and in order to do him full justice i will quote his words, merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his statement into three paragraphs. he says: "eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways. this is the cardinal point of the passage. "( ) of the antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([greek: tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); "( ) but as regards the undisputed canonical books, he only professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell about them_ ([greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the others ([greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded. "( ) but in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise." [ : ] in order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we can differ, i will first refer to the third. did eusebius intend to point out mere quotations of the books which he considered undisputed? as a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in the case of the st epistle of peter and the st epistle of john, which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be undisputed. [ : ] this is admitted by dr. lightfoot. that he omitted to mention a reference to the epistle to the corinthians in the epistle of clement of rome, or the reference by theophilus to the gospel of john, and other supposed quotations, might be set down as much to oversight as intention. on the other hand, that he did mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. although much might be said upon this point, therefore, i consider it of so little importance that i do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing it. if my assertions with regard to the silence of eusebius likewise include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very subsidiary testimony that i should have no reluctance in waiving it altogether. even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. in the evidential destitution of the gospels, apologists would thankfully have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to establish the reality of miracles and divine revelation. if this point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position? we are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the gospels in the works of hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, because eusebius does not record them; but, on the other hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. the only inference which i care to draw from the silence of eusebius is precisely that which dr. lightfoot admits that, both from his promise and practice, i am entitled to deduce: when any ancient writer "has something to _tell about_" the gospels, "any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them," eusebius will record it. this is the only information of the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these writers. so far, therefore, from producing the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _supernatural religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself, dr. lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner. before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the fathers have to tell about the gospels. i may mention, in the first place, that eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the gospels and other canonical works. [ : ] upon two occasions he quotes the account which clement of alexandria gives of the composition of mark's gospel, and also cites his statements regarding the other gospels. [ : ] in like manner he records the information, such as it is, which irenaeus has to impart about the four gospels and other works, [ : ] and what origen has to say concerning them. [ : ] interrogating extant works, we find in fact that eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or interesting regarding these books from early writers. dr. lightfoot says that eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the case of irenaeus. he says: "though he (eusebius) gives the principal passage in this author relating to the four gospels (irenaeus, _adv. haer._ iii. , ) he omits to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the question, _e.g._ that st. john wrote his gospel to counteract the errors of cerinthus and the nicolaitans (irenaeus, _adv. haer._ iii. , )." [ : ] i must explain, however, that the "interesting statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground eusebius may well have passed it over. dr. lightfoot further says: "thus too when he quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the asiatic elders who were acquainted with st. john, [ : ] he omits the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the fourth gospel, for it declared that christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the fourth gospel against the apparent chronology of the synoptists." [ : ] nothing, however, could be further from the desire or intention of eusebius than to represent any discordance between the gospels, or to support the one at the expense of the others. on the contrary, he enters into an elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three synoptists only to write the doings of the lord for one year after the imprisonment of john the baptist, and that john, having the other gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not embraced by the other evangelists. [ : ] moreover, the extraordinary assertions of irenaeus not only contradict the synoptics, but also the fourth gospel, and eusebius certainly could not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the presbyters who were acquainted with john. it being, then, admitted that eusebius not only pledges himself to record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three writers with regard to whom i have inferred anything from the "silence of eusebius." i need scarcely repeat that eusebius held hegesippus in very high estimation. he refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. eusebius quotes from the work of hegesippus a very long account of the martyrdom of james; [ : ] he refers to hegesippus as his authority for the statement that simeon was a cousin ([greek: anepsios]) of jesus, cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of joseph; [ : ] he confirms a passage in the epistle of clement by reference to hegesippus; [ : ] he quotes from hegesippus a story regarding some members of the family of jesus, of the race of david, who were brought before domitian; [ : ] he cites his narrative of the martyrdom of simeon, together with other matters concerning the early church; [ : ] in another place he gives a laudatory account of hegesippus and his writings; [ : ] shortly after he refers to the statement of hegesippus that he was in rome until the episcopate of eleutherus, [ : ] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions his observation on the epistle of clement, and quotes his remarks about the church in corinth, the succession of roman bishops, the general state of the church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [ : ] i mention these numerous references to hegesippus as i have noticed them in turning over the pages of eusebius, but others may very probably have escaped me. eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were used by hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these was the gospel according to the hebrews. he does not, however, record a single remark of any kind regarding our gospels, and the legitimate inference, and it is the only one i care to draw, is, that hegesippus did not say anything about them. i may simply add that, as that, as eusebius quotes the account of matthew and mark from papias, a man of whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in confirmation of the statement of the alexandrian clement regarding the composition of mark's gospel, [ : ] it would be against all reason, as well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he speaks with so much respect. i have said that eusebius would more particularly have quoted anything with regard to the fourth gospel, and for those who care to go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. no one can read eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care with which he speaks of john and his writings, and the substantially apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. apart from any doubts expressed regarding the gospel itself, the controversy as to the authenticity of the apocalypse and second and third epistles called by his name, with which eusebius was so well acquainted, and the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same john having written both the gospel and apocalypse, regarding which he so fully quotes the argument of dionysius of alexandria, [ : ] evidently made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to the fourth gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of the essential difference between that work and the three synoptics. the first occasion on which he speaks of john, he records the tradition that he was banished to patmos during the persecution under domitian, and refers to the apocalypse. he quotes irenaeus in support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the close of domitian's reign. [ : ] he goes on to speak of the persecution under domitian, and quotes hegesippus as to a command given by that emperor to slay all the posterity of david, [ : ] as also tertullian's account, [ : ] winding up his extracts from the historians of the time by the statement that, after nerva succeeded domitian, and the senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the latter, the apostle john returned from exile in patmos and, according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at ephesus. [ : ] he states that john, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist, governed the churches of asia after the death of domitian and his return from patmos, and that he was still living when trajan succeeded nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from irenaeus and clement of alexandria. [ : ] he then gives an account of the writings of john, and whilst asserting that the gospel must be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he gives an elaborate description. it is not necessary to quote his account of the fourth gospel and of the occasion of its composition, which he states to have been john's receiving the other three gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did not contain a narrative of the earlier history of christ. for this reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings of jesus before the baptist was cast into prison. after some very extraordinary reasoning, eusebius says that no one who carefully considers the points he mentions can think that the gospels are at variance with each other, and he conjectures that john probably omitted the genealogies because matthew and luke had given them. [ : ] without further anticipating what i have to say when speaking of papias, it is clear, i think, that eusebius, being aware of, and interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings attributed to john, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities, would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any information on the subject given by hegesippus, whom he so frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any. in regard to papias the case is still clearer. we find that eusebius quotes his account of the composition of gospels by matthew and mark, [ : ] although he had already given a closely similar narrative regarding mark from clement of alexandria, and appealed to papias in confirmation of it. is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had papias known anything of the other two gospels, he would not have enquired about them from the presbyters and recorded their information? and is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth gospels, eusebius would have omitted to quote it? certainly not; and dr. lightfoot's article proves it. eusebius had not only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what papias had to say about the gospels. even if he had been careless, his very reference to the first two gospels must have reminded him of the claims of the rest. there are, however, special reasons which render it still more certain that had papias had anything to tell about the fourth gospel,--and if there was a fourth gospel in his knowledge he must have had something, to tell about it,--eusebius would have recorded it. the first quotation he makes from papias is the passage in which the bishop of hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the words of the presbyters, "what john or matthew or what any other of the disciples of the lord said, and what aristion and the presbyter john, disciples of the lord, say." [ : ] eusebius observes, and particularly points out, that the name of john is twice mentioned in the passage, the former, mentioned with peter, james, and matthew, and other apostles, evidently being, he thinks, the evangelist, and the latter being clearly distinguished by the designation of presbyter. eusebius states that this proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of john in asia, and that two tombs were still shown at ephesus bearing the name of john. eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second of the two johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the revelation. what an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the subject from papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted with both! his attention is so pointedly turned to john at the very moment when he makes his quotations regarding matthew and mark, that i am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of dr. lightfoot and the peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of eusebius proves that papias said nothing about either the third or fourth gospels. i need not go on to discuss dionysius of corinth, for the same reasoning equally applies to his case. i have, therefore, only a few more words to say on the subject of eusebius. not content with what he intended to be destructive criticism, dr. lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following statement, which he prints in italics: "_the silence of eusebius respecting early witnesses to the fourth gospel is an evidence in its favour_." [ : ] now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by dr. lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? it means, not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are witnesses about anything connected with the fourth gospel, but simply that if eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that gospel by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does not undertake to mention. the value of his opinion at so late a date is very small. professor lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection with "the ignatian epistles," [ : ] which is equally abortive and limited to details. i do not intend to complain of the spirit in which the article is written, nor of its unfairness. on the whole i think that readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy is carried on. unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. it is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. now in a work like this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not possible altogether to escape errors. a critic or opponent is of course entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even alive to his own interests, i scarcely think that he will do so in a spirit of unfair detraction. but in doing this a writer is bound to be accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon himself. i propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to all such attacks, to follow professor lightfoot and dr. westcott, with some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the ignatian epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which they commit themselves. dr. lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. he says: "the ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student of earlier christian history. the literature is voluminous; the considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. a writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject. but in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence." [ : ] my critic objects that i express my opinions with decision. i shall hereafter justify this decision, but i would here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for dr. lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question make it easy for me. it requires but little logical perception to recognize that epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the gospels. the statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, and war is declared in the following terms: "the reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. it becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his arguments." [ : ] this sentence shows the scope of the discussion. my dicta, however, play a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to them--and i have never desired that any should be--my argument would not be in the least degree affected. the first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is one of mere critical history. i wrote: "the strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led ( ) the majority of critics to recognize the syriac version as the most genuine form of the letters of ignatius extant, and ( ) this is admitted by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the epistles." [ : ] upon this dr. lightfoot remarks:-- "no statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results of the ignatian controversy since the publication of the syriac epistles than this." [ : ] it will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one who is preaching "diffidence." when we come to details, however, dr. lightfoot admits: "those who maintain the genuineness of the ignatian epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." he seems to consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. to the five names quoted as recognising the priority of the syriac epistles may be added those of milman, böhringer, de pressensé, and dr. tregelles, which immediately occur to me. but i must ask upon what ground he limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? i certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the three curetonian epistles, and that this majority is made up partly of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still consider the syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the epistles. this will be evident to anyone who reads the context. with regard to the latter ( ) part of the sentence, i will at once say that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which i correct in this edition. [ : ] many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity prefer the curetonian version. the tübingen school are not unanimous on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. bleek, for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the priority of the curetonian "im höchsten grade wahrscheinlich." volkmar, lipsius, and rumpf prefer them. dr. lightfoot says: "the case of lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the curetonian letters, he has lately, if i rightly understand him, retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [ : ] dr. lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. lipsius has only withdrawn his opinion that the syriac letters are authentic, but, whilst now asserting that in all their forms the ignatian epistles are spurious, he still maintains the priority of the curetonian version. he first announced this change of view emphatically in , when he added: "an dem relativ grössern alter der syrischen textgestalt gegenüber der kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [ : ] in the very paper to which dr. lightfoot refers, lipsius also again says quite distinctly: "ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der syrer in zahlreichen fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten text bewahrt hat (vgl. meine nachweise in 'niedner's zeitschr.' s. ff)." [ : ] with regard to the whole of this ( ) point, it must be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the ignatian epistles in all forms. dr. lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage." [ : ] the "light" which he throws seems to pass through so peculiar a medium, that i should be much rather tempted to call it darkness. i beg the reader to favour me with his attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error and misrepresentation. the general statement referred to and quoted is as follows:-- "these three syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic epistles of ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from ignatius, prefer them to the version of seven greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.( ) as early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius. the magdeburg centuriators first attacked them, and calvin declared (p. ) them to be spurious,[^ ] an opinion fully shared by chemnitz, dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century,( ) and onward to comparatively recent times,( ) although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. that the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions.( )" [ : ] in the first note ( ) on p. i referred to bunsen, bleek, böhringer, cureton, ewald, lipsius, milman, ritschl, and weiss, and dr. lightfoot proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and i at once put his explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both to call more immediate attention to the point: the truth. | dr. lightfoot's statement. | _many of the ablest critics have | "these references, it will be pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate authentic epistles of ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that emanating from ignatius, _still | even these_ (the curetonian prefer them_ to the version of | epistles) _are genuine letters seven greek epistles, _and consider | emanating from ignatius, still them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of letters_ which we possess. | seven greek epistles, and consider | them the most ancient form of the | letters which we possess.'" [ : ] it must be evident to anyone who reads the context [ : ] that in this sentence i am stating opinions expressed in favour of the curetonian epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative priority. dr. lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws light" upon the point by the following remarks:-- the truth. | dr. lightfoot's statement. | _cureton, bunsen, böhringer, ewald, | "the reader, therefore, will milman, ritschl_, and _weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers genuineness of the syriac epistles. | condemns the ignatian letters _bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. bleek alone leaves distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some in any form. of the vossian | uncertainty while inclining to epistles, he says: "aber auch die | bunsen's view; the other eight echtheit dieser recension ist | distinctly maintain the keineswegs sicher." he considers the | genuineness of the curetonian priority of the curetonian "in the | letters." [ : ] highest degree probable." | | _lipsius_ rejects all the epistles, | as i have already said, but | maintains the priority of the | syriac. | dr. lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct. continuing his analysis, dr. lightfoot fights almost every inch of the ground in the very same style. he cannot contradict my statement that so early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius, and that the magdeburg centuriators attacked them, and calvin declared them to be spurious, [ : ] but dr. lightfoot says: "the criticisms of calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the long recension alone." [ : ] of course only the long recension was at that time known. rivet replies to campianus that calvin's objections were not against ignatius but the jesuits who had corrupted him. [ : ] this is the usual retort theological, but as i have quoted the words of calvin the reader may judge for himself. dr. lightfoot then says: "the clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. chemnitz did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen the position of the papal power, &c.'" [ : ] pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these epistles as evidence. in treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts of them with respect, chemnitz does nothing more than the magdeburg centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing them to ignatius himself. the epistles in the "long recension were before chemnitz both in the latin and greek forms. he says of them: "... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut graece leguntur. admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non referunt gravitatem apostolicam. adulteratas enim jam esse illas epistolas, vel inde colligitur." he then shows that quotations in ancient writers purporting to be taken from the epistles of ignatius are not found in these extant epistles at all, and says: "de epistolis igitur illis ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum regni pontificii." [ : ] even when he speaks in favour of them he "damns them with faint praise." the whole of the discussion turns upon the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with chemnitz. a shade more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. dr. lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and here again i must closely follow him. my note ( ) p. reads as follows: "( ) by bochartus, aubertin, blondel, basnage, casaubon, cocus, humfrey, rivetus, salmasius, socinus (faustus), parker, petau, &c. &c.; cf. jacobson, 'patr. apost.' i. p. xxv; cureton, 'vindiciae ignatianae,' , appendix." upon this dr. lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:-- "but the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted. 'similar doubts' could only, i think, be interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius.'" [ : ] as dr. lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is "the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for which they are quoted." it is difficult, without entering into minute classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment. desirous, therefore, of embracing a large class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case on my own side, i used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them. i said, then, in guarded terms--and i italicise the part which dr. lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to. dr. lightfoot admits that bochart directly condemns one epistle, and would probably have condemned the rest also; that aubertin, blondel, basnage, r. parker, and saumaise actually rejected all; and that cook pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." so far, therefore, there can be no dispute. i will now take the rest in succession. dr. lightfoot says that humfrey "considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main." dr. lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the epistles in the note, but had i intended to say that humfrey and all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the epistles i should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed "_doubts_ more or less definite," which humfrey does. dr. lightfoot says that socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far as i can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." his very denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more or less definite." "casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether," dr. lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the epistles with new arguments." but i have never affirmed that he "rejected them altogether." casaubon died before he fulfilled the promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he might have used. i must point out, however, that the antiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. with regard to rivet the case is different. i had overlooked the fact that in a subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving archbishop usher's edition on of the short recension, he had given his adhesion to "that form of the epistles." [ : ] this fact is also mentioned by pearson, and i ought to have observed it. [ : ] petau, the last of the writers referred to, says: "equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab ignatio epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." he then goes on to mention the recent publication of the vossian epistles and the version of usher, and the learned jesuit father has no more decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [ : ] the next note ( ), p. , was only separated from the preceding for convenience of reference, and dr. lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows:-- "the next note ( ), p. , is as follows:--"'[wotton, _praef. clem. r. epp._ ]; j. owen, _enquiry into original nature, &c., evang. church, works_, ed. russel, , vol. xx. p. ; oudin, _comm. de script. eccles._ &c. , p. ; lampe, _comm. analyt. ex evang. joan._ , i. p. ; lardner, _credibility_, &c., _works_, ii. p. f.; beausobre, _hist. crit. de manichée_, &c. , i. p. , note ; ernesti, _n. theol. biblioth._ , ii. p. ; [mosheim, _de rebus christ._ p. f.]; weismann, _introd. in memorab. eccles._ , i. p. ; heumann, _conspect. reipub. lit._ , p. ; schroeckh, _chr. kirchengesch._ , ii. p. ; griesbach, _opuscula academ._ , i. p. ; rosenmüller, _hist. interpr. libr. sacr. in eccles._ , i. p. ; semler, _paraphr. in epist ii. petri._ , _praef._; kestner, _comm. de eusebii h.e. condit._ , p. ; henke, _allg. gesch. chr. kirche_, , i. p. ; neander, _k.g._ , ii. p. [cf. i. p. , anm. ; baumgarten-crusius, _lehrb. chr. dogmengesch._ , p. ; cf. _comp. chr. dogmengesch._ , p. ; [niedner, _gesch. chr. k._ p. ; thiersch, _die k. im ap. zeit._ p. ; hagenbach, _k.g._ i. p. f.]; cf. _cureton, vind. ign. append._; ziegler, _versuch eine prag. gesch. d. kirchl. verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ , p. ; j.e.c. schmidt, _versuch üb. d. gedopp. recens. d. br. s. ignat._, in henke's _mag. f. rel. phil. u.s.w._ [ ; cf. _biblioth. f. krit. u.s.w., n.t._ i. p ff. _urspr. kath. kirche_, ii. i. p. f.]; _handbuch chr. k.g._ i. p. .' "the brackets are not the author's, but my own. "this is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. certainly, as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading. it is important to observe, however, that every one of these references, except those which i have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to cureton's 'vindiciae ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten minutes. our author has here and there transposed the order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in cureton. but what purpose was served by thus importing into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? and, if he thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to cureton buried among the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional references on which it has no bearing?" [ : ] i do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is here advanced as an important point to observe, but i call attention to the unfair spirit in which dr. lightfoot's criticisms are made. i ask every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references in a note are also given by cureton, i simply took them from him, and thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references," and further to insinuate that i "here and there transposed the order" apparently to conceal the source? this is a kind of criticism which i very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent. now, as full quotations are given in cureton's appendix, i should have been perfectly entitled to take references from it, had i pleased, and for the convenience of many readers i distinctly indicate cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. the fact is, however, that i did not take the references from cureton, but in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note "seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly does not misrepresent the fact, for i took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the "by-paths of ignatian literature." now in analysing the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_," continued to be expressed regarding the ignatian epistles. i am much obliged to dr. lightfoot for drawing my attention to wotton. his name is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and was by mistake included in it. i also frankly give up weismann, whose doubts i find i had exaggerated, and proceed to examine dr. lightfoot's further statements. he says that thiersch uses the curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the vossian. thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three epistles as genuine. he says distinctly: "these three syriac epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same ms. seem to be excerpts. but on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven epistles, in the form in which they are known since usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. for no ms. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven epistles attested by eusebius, a ms. such as lay before eusebius." [ : ] thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." dr. lightfoot then continues: "of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, lardner, beausobre, schroeckh, griesbach, kestner, neander, and baumgarten-crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus." [ : ] the words which i have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained. i must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or less definite_," which is all i quote them for. i will take each name in order. _lardner_ says: "but whether the smaller (vossian epistles) themselves are the genuine writings of ignatius, bishop of antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. and whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, i must own i have found it a very difficult question." the opinion which he expresses finally is merely: "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_ the genuine epistles of ignatius." _beausobre_ says: "je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité des _lettres de st. ignace_. si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées." _schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for the shorter (vossian) epistles, "many doubts arise which make them suspicious." he proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of ignatius are interpolations of a later time. he concludes with the pertinent observation: "however probable this is, it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." in fact it would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the epistles. _griesbach_ and _kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite," but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy too much space. _neander._--dr. lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from the english translation of the first edition of neander's history given by cureton in his appendix, has not attended to the brief german quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing "in favour of a genuine nucleus," neander might well have been classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the ignatian epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who merely express doubt. neander says: "as the account of the martyrdom of ignatius is very suspicious, so also the epistles which suppose the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who is addressing his last words to the communities. a hierarchical purpose is not to be mistaken." in an earlier part of the work he still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called ignatian epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_absichtlichkeit_), and then he continues: "as the tradition regarding the journey of ignatius to rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his epistles, which presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me with faith in their authenticity." [ : ] he goes on to state additional grounds for disbelief. _baumgarten-crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the extant may have formed part of the original epistles, and in a note he excepts only the passages quoted by the fathers. he seems to agree with semler and others that the two recensions are probably the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. some years later he remarked that enquiries into the epistles, although not yet concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the shorter recension was more original than the long, but that even the shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations (_ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. this very cautious statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material of the letters cannot be ascertained. dr. lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous. he proceeds to the next "note ( )" with the same unhesitating vigour, and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." wherever it has been possible, dr. lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. i will put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards:-- | dr. lightfoot. | "further examination and more | "references to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to subject have confirmed earlier | the 'large mass of critics' who doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the ignatian recognise _that the authenticity of | epistles 'can only be considered none_ of these epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.'" established_, and that they can | [ : ] only be considered later and | spurious compositions." | there are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively pronounces them to be spurious. out of the twenty authorities referred to, dr. lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what he states to be the purpose of the note. he seems to consider that a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be defined invalidates my reference. i maintain, however, that it does not. it is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may have been based. i will analyse the six references. _bleek._--dr. lightfoot says: "of these bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite opinion." dr. lightfoot omits to mention that i do not refer to bleek directly, but by "cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. i have already partly stated bleek's view. after pointing out some difficulties, he says generally: "it comes to this, that the origin of the ignatian epistles themselves is still very doubtful." he refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the long recension, and another which occurs in the shorter recension he does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "the authenticity of this recension also is by no means certain," and, next, the cureton epistles discredit the others. "whether this recension (the curetonian) is more original than the shorter greek is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree probable." in another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences in the "ignatian epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these ignatian epistles themselves, in the different recensions in which we possess them." [ : ] in fact he did not consider that their authenticity could be established. i do not, however, include him here at all. _gfrörer._--dr. lightfoot, again, omits to state that i do not cite this writer like the others, but by a "cf." merely suggest a reference to his remarks. _harless_, according to dr. lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that the epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands in the vossian letters as well as in the long recension." this is a mistake. harless quotes a passage in connection with paul's epistle to the ephesians with the distinct remark: "in this case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the recensions is _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both recensions have the passage." he recognises that the completeness of the proof that ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of marcion is somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of ignatius. he did not, in fact, venture to consider the ignatian epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century. _schliemann_, dr. lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either existing recension." now what schliemann says is this: "certainly neither the shorter and still less the longer recension in which we possess these epistles can lay claim to authenticity. only if we must, nevertheless, without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. in a note he adds: "the external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine substratum--polycarp already speaks of the same in ch. xiii. of his epistle. but that in their present form they do not proceed from ignatius the contents sufficiently show." _hase_, according to dr. lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion." if he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what that opinion is with sufficient clearness. the long recension, he says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion of an invention in favour of episcopacy, and the shorter text is not fully attested either. the curetonian epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "but even if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these epistles, yet they would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the second century." these last words are a clear admission of his opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. _lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in favour of the authenticity of the epistles in the shorter recension, but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been able to shake off. he proceeds to point out their internal improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed journey, which make it "still more improbable that ignatius himself can really have written these epistles in this situation." lechler does not consider that the curetonian epistles strengthen the case; and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the inauthenticity of the ignatian epistles, he at least very clearly justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be established. now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon my notes? out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of christian literature, it appears that--much to my regret--i have inserted one name totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been removed by the subsequent publication of the short recension and consequently erroneously classed him, and i withdraw a third whose doubts i consider that i have overrated. mistakes to this extent in dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly expressed, may, i hope, be excusable, and i can truly say that i am only too glad to correct such errors. on the other hand, a critic who attacks such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of "misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and i have shown that dr. lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, but unfair in his statements of my purpose. i am happy, however, to be able to make use of his own words and say: "i may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though i have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, i believe, irrefragable." [ : ] there are further misstatements made by dr. lightfoot to which i must briefly refer before turning to other matters. he says, with unhesitating boldness: "one highly important omission is significant. there is no mention, from first to last, of the armenian version. now it happens that this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its publication_. one who (like our author) maintains the priority of the curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. this version was given to the world by petermann in , the same year in which cureton's later work, the _corpus ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown to him. its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the ignatian question during the last quarter of a century. this is true of lipsius and weiss and hilgenfeld and uhlhorn, whom he cites, not less than of merx and denzinger and zahn, whom he neglects to cite_." [ : ] now first as regards the facts. i do not maintain the priority of the curetonian epistles in this book myself; indeed i express no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my diffident critic, that the epistles in no form have "any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, even if they have any value at all." i merely represent the opinion of others regarding those epistles. dr. lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the armenian version, and i call special attention to the passages in the above quotation which i have taken the liberty of italicising. i venture to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and as dr. lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, i will state how the case stands with regard to them. weiss, lipsius, uhlhorn, merx, and zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. denzinger, however, only refers to petermann's publication, which appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the ignatian question, two years after, [ : ] he does not even allude to the armenian version. beyond the barest historical reference to petermann's work, hilgenfeld does not discuss the armenian version at all. so much for the writers actually mentioned by dr. lightfoot. as for "the writers who have specially discussed the ignatian question during the last quarter of a century:" cureton apparently did not think it worth while to add anything regarding the armenian version of petermann after its appearance; bunsen refutes petermann's arguments in a few pages of his "hippolytus;" [ : ] baur, who wrote against bunsen and the curetonian letters, and, according to dr. lightfoot's representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even allude to the armenian epistles; ewald, in a note of a couple of lines, [ : ] refers to petermann's epistles as identical with a post-eusebian manipulated form of the epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text; dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [ : ] hefele [ : ] supports them at somewhat greater length; but bleek, volkmar, tischendorf, böhringer, scholten, and others have not thought them worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have, so far as i am aware, introduced them into the controversy at all. the argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag into a discussion already too long and complicated, and i refer the reader to bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, i may quote the following lines: "but it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the seven letters in armenian, and i maintain, they prove that cureton's text is an incomplete extract, because, i think, i have found some syriac idioms in the armenian text! well, if that is not a joke, it simply proves, according to ordinary logic, that the seven letters must have once been translated into syriac. but how can it prove that the greek original of this supposed syriac version is the genuine text, and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [ : ] dr. lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account." now all this is sheer misrepresentation. i do not assume the priority of the curetonian epistles, and i examine all the passages contained in the seven greek epistles which have any bearing upon our gospels. passing on to another point, i say: "seven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally purporting to be by ignatius, simply because only that number were mentioned by eusebius." [ : ] another passage is also quoted by dr. lightfoot, which will be found a little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. upon this he writes as follows:-- "this attempt to confound the seven epistles mentioned by eusebius with the other confessedly spurious epistles, as if they presented themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing on the question. ( ) theodoret, a century after eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. ( ) the confessedly spurious epistles differ widely in style from the seven epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven epistles. in other words, they clearly formed part of the long recension in the first instance. ( ) they abound in anachronisms which point to an age later than eusebius, as the date of their composition." [ : ] although i do not really say in the above that no other pleas are advanced in favour of the seven epistles, i contend that, reduced to its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, if not altogether, upon their mention by eusebius. the very first reason ( ) advanced by dr. lightfoot to refute me is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight epistles are put out of court because even theodoret, a century after eusebius, does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of eusebius," the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of theodoret. suppose, however, that eusebius had referred to any of them, how changed their position would have been! the epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest.. the fact is, moreover, that, throughout the controversy, the two divisions of epistles are commonly designated the "prae-" and "post-eusebian," making him the turning-point of the controversy. indeed, further on, dr. lightfoot himself admits: "the testimony of eusebius first differentiates them." [ : ] the argument ( and ) that the eight rejected epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the vossian epistles. the fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by dr. lightfoot, to which i refer above, and which i have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. it is this:-- "it is a total mistake to suppose that the seven epistles mentioned by eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. these epistles are mixed up in the medicean and corresponding ancient latin mss. with the other eight epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour." [ : ] i will at once give dr. lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy--dr. tregelles:-- dr. lightfoot. | dr. tregelles. | ( ) "it is not strictly true that | "it is a mistake to think of _seven_ the seven epistles are mixed up | ignatian epistles in greek having with the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for no epistles. in the greek and latin | such seven exist, except through mss., as also in the armenian | their having been selected by version, the spurious epistles | _editors_ from the medicean ms. come after the others; and the | which contains so much that circumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a fact facts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine a shows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission of addition, borrowed from the long | _seven_ have overlooked." [ : ] recension to complete the body | of ignatian letters." [ : ] | i will further quote the words of cureton, for, as dr. lightfoot advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement. cureton says: "again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the epistles of st. ignatius, as exhibited in the medicean ms., and in the ancient latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the epistles presumed to be the genuine production of that holy martyr are mixed up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. both in the greek and latin mss. all these are placed upon the same footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been the specification of some of them by eusebius and his omission of any mention of the others." [ : ] "the external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour of the rejected greek epistles, with the exception of that to the philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which have been received. they are found in all the manuscripts, both greek and latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two distinct and very different recensions, if we except the epistle to polycarp, in which the variations are very few. of these two recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its reception; and the text of the medicean codex and of the two copies of the corresponding latin version belonging to caius college, cambridge, and corpus christi college, oxford, has been adopted ... in all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the former and latter epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of the greek recension or the translator of the latin version esteemed one to be better or more genuine than another. nor can any prejudice result to the epistles to the tarsians, to the antiochians, and to hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological order, and rank after the rest as having been written from philippi, at which place ignatius is said to have arrived after he had despatched the previous letters. so far, therefore, as the evidence of all the existing copies, latin as well as greek, of both the recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the rejected epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." [ : ] proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, i will very briefly show the order in which these epistles have been found in some of the principal mss. one of the earliest published was the ancient latin version of eleven epistles edited by j. faber stapulensis in , which was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined table i shall mark a, [ : ] and which also exhibits the order of cod. vat. , assigned to the eleventh century. [ : ] the next (b) is a greek ms. edited by valentinus pacaeus in , [ : ] and the order at the same time represents that of the cod. pal. . [ : ] the third (c) is the ancient latin translation, referred to above, published by archbishop usher. [ : ] the fourth (d) is the celebrated medicean ms. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by vossius in . [ : ] this also represents the order of the cod. casanatensis g.v. . [ : ] i italicise the rejected epistles: a. | b. | c. | d. | faber stap. | val. pacaeus. | usher | vossius. | | | | | . trallians | _mar. cass._ | smyrn. | smyrn. | . magn. | trallians | polycarp | polycarp | . _tarsians_ | magnes. | ephes. | ephes. | . _philip._ | _tarsians_ | magnes. | magnes. | . philad. | _philip. | philad. | philad. | . smyrn. | philad. | trallians | trallians | . polycarp | smyrn. | _mar. ad. ign._ | _mar. ad. ign._ | . _antioch._ | polycarp | _ign. ad. mar._ | _ign. ad. mar._ | . _hero_ | _antioch. | _tarsians_ | _tarsians_ | . ephes. | _hero_ | _antioch._ | | . romans | ephes. | _hero_ | | . | romans | _mart. ign._ | | . | | romans | | i have given the order in mss. containing the "long recension" as well as the vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have an undeniable bearing upon this question. taking the vossian ms., it is obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and the spurious, it contains three of the false epistles, and _does not contain the so-called genuine epistle to the romans at all_. the epistle to the romans, in fact, is, to use dr. lightfoot's own expression, "embedded in the martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the epistles. this circumstance alone would justify the assertion which dr. lightfoot contradicts. i must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn for a short time to consider objections raised by dr. westcott. whilst i have to thank him for greater courtesy, i regret that i must point out serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. before proceeding to them i may make one or two general observations. dr. westcott says:-- "i may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics are on one side. the questions to be discussed must be decided by evidence and by argument and not by authority." [ : ] now the fact is that hitherto, in england, argument and evidence have almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted reverence. the orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of little more than a passing word of pious indignation. at the same time, therefore, that i endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority, i refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may find them discussed. i must be permitted to add, that i do not consider i uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as english divines have often seemed to represent it. dr. westcott, however, omits to state that i as persistently refer to writers who oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions. dr. westcott proceeds to make the accusation which i now desire to investigate. he says: "writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. and more than this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. one example will show that i do not speak too strongly." [ : ] dr. westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as i shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. the idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he does, if i rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely worthy of dr. westcott, although i am sure he does not mean to be unfair. the example selected is as follows: "'it has been demonstrated that ignatius was not sent to rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in antioch itself on the th december, a.d. ,( ) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on the th of that month.( )" [ : ] "'the references in support of these statements are the following:-- "'( ) baur, _urspr. d. episc., tüb. zeitschr. f. theol._ , h. , p. , anm.; bretschneider, _probabilia_, &c. p. ; bleek, _einl. n.t._ p. ; guericke, _handbuch, k.g._ i. p. ; hagenbach, _k.g._ i. p. f.; davidson, _introd. n.t._ i. p. ; mayerhoff, _einl. petr. schr._ p. ; scholten, _die ält. zeugnisse_, pp. , f.; volkmar, _der ursprung_, p. ; _handbuch einl. apocr._ i. pp. f., . "'( ) volkmar, _handbuch einl. apocr._ i. pp. ff., f.; _der ursprung_, p. ff.; baur, _ursp. d. episc. tüb. zeitschr. f. theol._ , h. , p. f.; _gesch. chr. kirche,_ , i. p. , amn. ; davidson, _introd. n.t._ i, p. ; scholten, _die ält. zeugnisse_, p. f.; cf. francke, _zur gesch. trajans u.s.w._ , p. f.; hilgenfeld, _die ap. väter_, p, .'" upon this dr. westcott remarks: such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their testimony as to the two points affirmed." [ : ] dr. westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note being absent from note , other names being inserted in the latter which do not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed being significantly varied. for instance, in note , the reference to volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note ; whilst a similar transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are made in the pages. the references in note , in fact, are given for the date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note , placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is made. i must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but which i regret may have misled dr. westcott in regard to note , although it does not affect note . readers are probably aware that there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of ignatius. i have in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my omission in this instance is, i think, the only exception in the book. the fact is, that i had originally in the text the words which i now add to the note: "the martyrdom has been variously dated about a.d. , or - . but whether assigning the event to rome or to antioch a majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later date." thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the text with this, i removed it with the design of putting the statement at the head of note , with reference to "a.d. " in the text, but unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite regret, was overlooked. the whole of the authorities in note , therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which i really referred to them. with this explanation, and marking the omitted references [ : ] by placing them within brackets, i proceed to analyse the two notes in contrast with dr. westcott's statements. note , for the date a.d. - . dr. westcott's statements. | the truth. | | baur, _urspr. d. episc., tüb. | zeitschr._ , h. (p. , | anm.) baur states as the date of | the parthian war, and of trajan's | visit to rome, "during which the | above order" (the sentence against | ignatius) is said to have been | given, a.d. and not . | " . baur, _urspr. d. episc., tüb. | _ibid._ p. , anm. zeitschr._ , ii. . p. , | anm. in this note, which is too | after showing the extreme long to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances so far as i see, _in any way | under which the letters to the bearing_ upon the history [ : ] | smyrnaeans and to polycarp are said except a passing supposition 'wenn | to have been written, baur points ... ignatius im j. an ihn | out the additional difficulty in [polycarp] ... schrieb ...' | regard to the latter that, if | [polycarp] died in a.d. in his | th year, and ignatius wrote to him | as already bishop of smyrna in a.d. | , he must have become bishop at | least in his th year, and | continued so for upwards of half | a century. the inference is clear | that if ignatius died so much | earlier as a.d. it involves | the still greater improbability | that polycarp must have become | bishop of smyrna at latest in his | th year, which is scarcely to be | maintained, and the later date is | thus obviously supported. | | (ibid. _gesch. christl. kirche_, | i. p. , anm. .) | | baur supports the assertion that | ignatius suffered martyrdom in | antioch, a.d. . | " . bretschneider, _probabilia_, x. | the same. p. . 'pergamus ad ignatium '_qui | circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' | | " . bleek, _einl. n.t._ p. | bleek, _einl. n.t._ p. . [p. ed. ] '... in den | briefen des ignatius bischofes von | ignatius suffered martyrdom at rome antiochien, der unter trajan gegen | under trajan, a.d. . _zu rom_ als märtyrer starb.' | | " . guericke, _handb. k.g._ i. | guericke, _handbuch k.g._ i. p. . p. [p. ed. , , the | edition which i have used]. | ignatius was sent to rome, under 'ignatius, bischoff von antiochien | trajan, a.d. , and was destroyed (euseb. "h.e." iii. ), _welcher_ | by lions in the coliseum, a.d. . wegen seines standhaften | bekenntnisses christi _unter trajan | _nach rom geführt, und hier | im colosseum von löwen zerrissen | wurde_ (vgl. § , i.)' [where the | same statement is repeated]. | | " . hagenbach, k.g. i. f. [i | hagenbach, _k.g._ , p. . f. have not been able to see the book | referred to, but in his lectures | "he (ignatius) may have filled his 'die christliche kirche der drei | office about years when the ersten jahrhunderte," [ : ] | emperor, in the year (according (pp. ff.), hagenbach mentions | to others still earlier), came to the difficulty which has been felt | antioch. it was during his war as to the execution at rome, while | against the parthians." [hagenbach an execution at antioch might have | states some of the arguments for and been simpler and more impressive, | against the martyrdom in antioch, and then quotes gieseler's solution,| and the journey to rome, the former and passes on with 'wie dem such | of which he seems to consider more sei.'] | probable.] | " . davidson, _introd. n.t._ i. | davidson, _introd. n.t._ i. p. . p. . 'all [the epistles of | ignatius] are posterior to ignatius | the same as opposite. himself, who was not thrown to the | wild beasts in the amphitheatre at | these "peremptory statements" are rome by command of trajan, but at | of course based upon what is antioch on december , a.d. . | considered satisfactory evidence, the epistles were written after | though it may not be adduced here. a.d.' [for these peremptory | statements no authority whatever is | adduced]. | | " . mayerhoff, _einl. petr. schr._ | mayerhoff, _einl. petr. schr._ p. . '... ignatius, _der | p. . spätestens zu rom den | märtyrertod litt ..._' | ignatius suffered martyrdom in rome | at latest a.d. . | " . scholten, _die ält. zeugnisse_, | scholten, _die ält. zeugnisse_, p. , mentions as the year of | p. , states a.d. as the date ignatius' death: p. f. the | of ignatius' death. at p. he ignatian letters are rejected | repeats this statement, and gives partly 'weil sie eine märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his des ignatius nach rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in antioch on schon früher erkanntes | the th december, a.d. . ungeschichtliches wesen durch | volkmar's nicht ungegründete | vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher | wird. darnach scheint nämlich | ignatius nicht zu rom auf befehl | des sanftmüthigen trajans, sondern | zu antiochia selbst, in folge eines | am dreizehnten december | eingetretenen erdbebens, als opfer | eines abergläubischen volkswahns am | zwanzigsten december dieses jahres | im amphitheater den wilden thieren | zur beute überliefert worden zu | sein.' | | " . volkmar, _der ursprung_, p. | volkmar, _der ursprung_, p. , [p. ff.] [ : ] [this book i | affirms the martyrdom at antioch, have not been able to consult, but | th december, . from secondary references i gather | that it repeats the arguments given | under the next reference.] | | " . volkmar, haindb. _einl. apocr._| ibid. _handbuch einl. apocr._ pp. f., . 'ein haupt der | p. f., affirms the martyrdom gemeinde zu antiochia, ignatius, | at antioch, th december, . wurde, während trajan dortselbst | überwinterte, am . december den | thieren vorgeworfen, in folge der | durch das erdbeben vom . december | gegen die [greek: atheoi] | erweckten volkswuth, ein opfer | zugleich der siegesfeste des | parthicus, welche die judith- | erzählung (i. ) andeutet, dio | (c. f.; vgl. c. ) voraussetzt | ...' | | "p. . the same statement is | ibid. p. . the same repeated briefly." [ : ] | statement, with fuller | chronological evidence. it will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that baur, in the note in which dr. westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it and against the earlier date, and as dr. westcott considers, rightly, that argument should decide everything, i am surprised that he has not perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as statements of evidence. to sum up the opinions expressed, i may state that whilst all the nine writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted, three of them (bleek, guericke, and mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to rome, one (bretschneider) mentions no place, one (hagenbach) is doubtful, but leans to antioch, and the other four declare for the martyrdom in antioch. nothing, however, could show more conclusively the purpose of note , which i have explained, than this very contradiction, and the fact that i claim for the general statement in the text, regarding the martyrdom in antioch itself in opposition to the legend of the journey to and death in rome, only the authorities in note , which i shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with dr. westcott's statements, and here i beg the favour of the reader's attention. note . dr. westcott's statements. | the truth. | . volkmar: see above. | volkmar, _handbuch einl. apocr._ | i. pp. ff., f. | | it will be observed on turning to | the passage "above" ( ), to which | dr. westcott refers, that he quotes | a single sentence containing merely | a concise statement of facts, and | that no indication is given to the | reader that there is anything beyond | it. at p. "the same statement | is repeated briefly." now either | dr. westcott, whilst bringing a most | serious charge against my work, based | upon this "one example," has actually | not taken the trouble to examine my | reference to "pp. ff., f.," | and p. ff., to which he would | have found himself there directed, | or he has acted towards me with a | want of fairness which i venture to | say he will be the first to regret, | when he considers the facts. | | would it be divined from the words | opposite, and the sentence "above," | that volkmar enters into an elaborate | argument, extending over a dozen | closely printed pages, to prove that | ignatius was not sent to rome at all, | but suffered martyrdom in antioch | itself on the th december, a.d. , | probably as a sacrifice to the | superstitious fury of the people | against the [greek: atheoi], excited | by the earthquake which occurred on | the thirteenth of that month? i shall | not here attempt to give even an | epitome of the reasoning, as i shall | presently reproduce some of the | arguments of volkmar and others in a | more condensed and consecutive form. | | ibid. _der ursprung_, p. ff. | | volkmar repeats the affirmations which | he had fully argued in the above | work and elsewhere. | . "baur, _ursprung d. episc., | baur, _urspr. d. episc., tüb. tüb. zeitschr._ , ii. h. , | zeitschr._ , h. , p. f. p. f. | | "in this passage baur discusses | baur enters into a long and minute generally the historical | examination of the historical character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of he considers, as a whole, to be | ignatius, and of the ignatian 'doubtful and incredible.' to | epistles, and pronounces the whole establish this result he notices | to be fabulous, and more especially the relation of christianity to | the representation of his sentence the empire in the time of trajan, | and martyr-journey to rome. he which he regards as inconsistent | shows that, while isolated cases of with the condemnation of ignatius;| condemnation to death, under and the improbable circumstances | occurred during trajan's reign may of the journey. the personal | justify the mere tradition that he characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no history of ignatius, are, in his | instance recorded in which a opinion, all a mere creation of | christian was condemned to be sent the imagination. the utmost he | to rome to be cast to the beasts; allows is that he may have | that such a sentence is opposed to suffered martyrdom." (p. .) | all historical data of the reign of | trajan, and to all that is known of | his character and principles; and | that the whole of the statements | regarding the supposed journey | directly discredit the story. the | argument is much too long and | elaborate to reproduce here, but i | shall presently make use of some | parts of it. | " . baur, _gesch. chr. kirche_, | "ibid., _gesch. chr. kirche_, , , i. p. , anm. . | i. p. , anm. . | "'die verurtheilung _ad bestias_ | "the reality is 'wohl nur' that in und die abführung dazu nach rom | the year , when trajan wintered ... mag auch unter trajan nichts | in antioch, ignatius suffered zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein, | martyrdom in antioch itself, as a aber ... bleibt ie geschichte | sacrifice to popular fury seines märtyrerthums auch nach | consequent on the earthquake of der vertheidigung derselben von | that year. the rest was developed lipsius ... höchst | out of the reference to trajan for unwahrscheinlich. das factische | the glorification of martyrdom." ist wohl nur dass ignatius im j. | , als trajan in antiochien | überwinterte, in folge des | erdbebens in diesem jahr, in | antiochien selbst als ein opfer | der volkswuth zum märtyrer | wurde.' | | . davidson: see above. | davidson, _introd. n.t._, p. . | | "all (the epistles) are posterior | to ignatius himself, who was not | thrown to the wild beasts in the | amphitheatre at rome by command of | trajan, but at antioch, on december | th, a.d. ." | . scholten: see above. | scholten, _die ält. zeugnisse_, | p. f. the ignatian epistles are | declared to be spurious for various | reasons, but partly "because they | mention a martyr-journey of ignatius | to rome, the unhistorical character | of which, already earlier recognised | (see baur, _urspr. des episc._ , | p. ff., _die ign. briefe_, ; | schwegler, _nachap. zeitalt._ ii. | p. ff.; hilgenfeld, _apost. | väter_, p. ff.; réville, | _le lien_, , nos. - ), is | made all the more probable by | volkmar's not groundless conjecture. | according to it ignatius is reported | to have become the prey of wild beasts | on the th december, , not in the | amphitheatre in rome by the order of | the mild trajan, but in antioch | itself, as the victim of superstitious | popular fury consequent on an | earthquake which occurred on the | th december of that year." | . "francke, _zur gesch. | "cf. francke, _zur gesch. trajan's_, trajan's_, [ ], p. f. | . this is a mere comparative [a discussion of the date of the | reference to establish the important beginning of trajan's parthian | point of the date of the parthian war, which he fixes in a.d. , | war and trajan's visit to antioch. but he decides nothing directly | dr. westcott omits the "cf." as to the time of ignatius' | martyrdom.] | | . "hilgenfeld, _die ap. väter_, | hilgenfeld, _die ap. väter_, p. ff. p. [pp. ff.] hilgenfeld | hilgenfeld strongly supports baur's points out the objections to the | argument which is referred to narrative in the acts of the | above, and while declaring the martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of ignatius, and more refers to the period between | especially the journey to rome, eusebius and jerome: setting | incredible, he considers the mere aside this detailed narrative he | fact that ignatius suffered considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made letters. the mode of punishment | out. he shows [ : ] that the by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the th some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,' | december as the day of ignatius' he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were andre punct, die versendung nach | buried at antioch, where they still rom.' why was the punishment not | were in the days of chrysostom and carried out at antioch? would it | jerome. he argues from all that is be likely that under an emperor | known of the reign and character of like trajan a prisoner like | trajan, that such a sentence from ignatius would be sent to rome to | the emperor himself is quite fight in the amphitheatre? the | unsupported and inconceivable. a circumstances of the journey as | provincial governor might have described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in the account of the persecution | any case the transmission to rome itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful. he shows, having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts, doubt (like baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the history, and gives no support to | journey incredible. it is the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of martyrdom 'at antioch on the th | this argument, which extends over december, a.d. .'" | five long pages, but although | hilgenfeld does not directly refer | to the theory of the martyrdom in | antioch itself, his reasoning | forcibly points to that conclusion, | and forms part of the converging | trains of reasoning which result in | that "demonstration" which i | assert. i will presently make use | of some of his arguments. at the close of this analysis dr. westcott sums up the result as follows: "in this case, therefore, again, volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, what scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [ : ] it is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of the fact than the assertion that "volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon any ordinary theory. my mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate idea of the elaborate arguments of volkmar, baur, and hilgenfeld, but i hope to state their main features, a few pages on. with regard to dr. westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he expresses his own belief. it is impossible to secure absolute unanimity of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether i refer to writers, in connection with the circumstances which i affirm to be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. a critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all when the elaborate reasoning of men like volkmar, baur, and hilgenfeld is referred to. therefore, when he goes on to say: "it seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, i believe, agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous and misleading"--[ : ] dr. westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his own criticism of it, endorsed by professor lightfoot, is "frivolous and misleading," and i venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy of my references. as dr. westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in regard to the ignatian controversy, i may now return to dr. lightfoot, and complete my reply to his objections; but i must do so with extreme brevity, as i have already devoted too much space to this subject, and must now come to a close. to the argument that it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various churches, dr. lightfoot advances arguments, derived from zahn, regarding the roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." these cases, however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is assumed. that christians imprisoned for their religious belief should receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. the case of ignatius, however, is very different. if the meaning of [greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes, the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the roman procedure is described by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-ignatius can be pointed out in any known instance. the case of saturus and perpetua, even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very different; [ : ] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the extant history was written by either of them, [ : ] but on the contrary, i maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. dr. lightfoot advances the instance of paul as a case in point of a christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with churches and individuals as he desires." [ : ] it is scarcely possible to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-ignatius and paul, as narrated in the "acts of the apostles," although doubtless the story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the latter. whilst ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a christian, paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a roman citizen, rescued from infuriated jews (xxiii. ), repeatedly declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds (xxv. , xxvi. ), and who might have been set at liberty but that he had appealed to caesar (xxv. f., xxvi. ). his position was one which secured the sympathy of the roman soldiers. ignatius "fights with beasts from syria even unto rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten leopards," but paul is represented as receiving very different treatment. felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come and minister to him (xxiv. ), and when the voyage is commenced it is said that julius, who had charge of paul, treated him courteously, and, gave him liberty to go to see his friends at sidon (xxvii. ). at rome he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him (xxviii. ), and he continued for two years in his own hired house (xxviii. ). these circumstances are totally different from those under which the epistles of ignatius are said to have been written. "but the most powerful testimony," dr. lightfoot goes on to say, "is derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [ : ] the case of peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate than that of paul. of peregrinus himself, historically, we really know little or nothing, for the account of lucian is scarcely received as serious by anyone. [ : ] lucian narrates that this peregrinus proteus, a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, found it convenient to leave his own country. in the course of his travels he fell in with christians and learnt their doctrines, and, according to lucian, the christians soon were mere children in his hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [ : ] after a time he was put in prison for his new faith, which lucian says was a real service to him afterwards in his impostures. during the time he was in prison he is said to have received those services from christians which dr. lightfoot quotes. peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the governor of syria, who loved philosophy, [ : ] and travelled about, living in great comfort at the expense of the christians, until at last they quarrelled in consequence, lucian thinks, of his eating some forbidden food. finally, peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself into the flames of a funeral pile during the olympian games. an earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after, peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by the fire. now this writing, of which i have given the barest sketch, is a direct satire upon christians, or even, as baur affirms, "a parody of the history of jesus." [ : ] there are no means of ascertaining that any of the events of the christian career of peregrinus were true, but it is obvious that lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the christians to peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of the satire. there is another circumstance which must be mentioned. lucian's account of peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the ignatian epistles as evidence for them. [ : ] "the singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that lucian was acquainted with the ignatian history, if not with the ignatian letters." these are the words of dr. lightfoot, although he guards himself, in referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "at all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [ : ] on the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. if it were true that lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the ignatian epistles and martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the treatment of christian prisoners. on the other hand, as this cannot be shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical value. apart from all this, however, the case of peregrinus, a man confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of ignatius condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of pseudo-ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free intercourse as they represent. i will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of the writers referred to in the note [ : ] attacked by dr. westcott, in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, demonstrate that ignatius was not sent to rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in antioch itself. the reader who wishes to go minutely into the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and i will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the source of each argument. where i add any particulars i will, when necessary, give my authorities. the ignatian epistles and martyrologies set forth that, during a general persecution of christians, in syria at least, ignatius was condemned by trajan, when he wintered in antioch during the parthian war, to be taken to rome and cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre. instead of being sent to rome by the short sea voyage, he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more difficult land route. the ten soldiers who guard him are described by himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but all the way from syria to rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he "fights with beasts." notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely receives deputations from the various churches, who, far from being molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to accompany him on his journey. he not only converses with these freely, but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various churches, which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled with advanced views of church government, and the dignity of the episcopate. these circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth. when we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. all that is known of the treatment of christians during the reign of trajan, as well as of the character of the emperor, is opposed to the supposition that ignatius could have been condemned by trajan himself, or even by a provincial governor, to be taken to rome and there cast to the beasts. it is well known that under trajan there was no general persecution of christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular fury and superstition. [ : ] an instance of this kind was the martyrdom of simeon, bishop of jerusalem, reported by hegesippus. he was not condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to rome for the purpose. why should ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? in fact, even during the persecutions under marcus aurelius, although christians in syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to rome. such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of trajan and his principles of government. neander, in a passage quoted by baur, says: "as he (trajan), like pliny, considered christianity mere fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and the matter by degrees come to an end." [ : ] this was certainly the policy which mainly characterised his reign. now not only would this severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a long journey by land through asia, and allowing him to pass through some of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various christian communities, and address long epistles to them. with the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and enthusiasm. it may not be out of place, as an indication of the results of impartial examination, to point out that neander's inability to accept the ignatian epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "we do not recognise the emperor trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well as that, during this reign, christians can have been cast to the wild beasts." [ : ] if, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by trajan himself, ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, the story does not gain greater probability. it is not credible that such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition to the spirit of the emperor's government. besides, if such a governor did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in antioch? why send the prisoner to rome? by doing so he made all the more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the clement trajan. the cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, of christians being sent for execution in rome. the transport to rome is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that ignatius, like simeon of jerusalem, may have been condemned to death during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the christians, to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. we are not without indications of such a cause operating in the case of ignatius. it is generally admitted that the date of trajan's visit to antioch is a.d. , when he wintered there during the parthian war. an earthquake occurred on the th december of that year, which was well calculated to excite popular superstition. it may not be out of place to quote here the account of the earthquake given by dean milman, who, although he mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in rome, still associates the condemnation of ignatius with the earthquake. he says: "nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in antioch ... at this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and destructive, shook the cities of the east. antioch suffered its most appalling ravages--antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for the emperor's invasion of the east, with ambassadors and tributary kings from all parts of the east. the city shook through all its streets; houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. many were killed: the consul pedo died of his hurts. the emperor himself hardly escaped through a window, and took refuge in the circus, where he passed some days in the open air. whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of the gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? this was towards the end of january; early in february the christian bishop, ignatius, was arrested. we know how, during this century, at every period of public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the panic-stricken heathens was, 'the christians to the lions!' it maybe that, in trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, the execution was ordered to take place, not in antioch, but in rome." [ : ] i contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution in antioch infinitely more probable. to continue, however: the earthquake occurred on the th, and the martyrdom of ignatius took place on the th december, just a week after the earthquake. his remains, as we know from chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, interred at antioch. the natural inference is that the martyrdom, the only part of the ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in rome but in antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against the [greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake. i will now go more into the details of the brief statements i have just made, and here we come for the first time to john malalas. in the first place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the th december. i will quote dr. lightfoot's own rendering of his further important statement. he says:-- "the words of john malalas are: the same king trajan was residing in the same city (antioch) when the visitation of god (_i.e._ the earthquake) occurred. and at that time the holy ignatius, the bishop of the city of antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [greek: emarturêse]) before him ([greek: epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [ : ] dr. lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. he argues that malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere may record stupid traditions. [ : ] if the narrative of foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. dr. lightfoot also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced by volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to the emperor." [ : ] on the other hand, it in no way contradicts it, for ignatius can only have "reviled" trajan when brought before him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of malalas is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the main, of course, directly supports it. then dr. lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary argument:-- "but it may be worth while adding that the error of malalas is capable of easy explanation. he has probably misinterpreted some earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. the words [greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression [greek: epi traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of trajan,' or 'in the presence of trajan.' a blundering writer like malalas might have stumbled over either expression." [ : ] this is a favourite device. in case his abuse of poor malalas should not sufficiently discredit him, dr. lightfoot attempts to explain away his language. it would be difficult indeed to show that the words [greek: marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the new testament, were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of ignatius which malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as dr. lightfoot indeed has in the first instance rendered the phrase. even zahn, whom dr. lightfoot so implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points. "the [greek: epi autou] together with [greek: tote] can only signify 'coram trajano' ('in the presence of trajan'), and [greek: emarturaese] only the execution." [ : ] let anyone simply read over dr. lightfoot's own rendering, which i have quoted above, and he will see that such quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, malalas seems excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority. that the statement of malalas does not agree with the reports of the fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that none of them had information from any other source than the ignatian epistles themselves, or tradition. eusebius evidently had not. irenaeus, origen, and some later fathers tell us nothing about him. jerome and chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. malalas is the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. malalas lived at antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. it is objected that so also did chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet he repeats the roman story. this, however, is no valid argument against malalas. chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, and had been quoted by earlier fathers. it is in no way surprising that, some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly have accepted the representations of the epistles purporting to have been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have shaped the prevailing tradition. the remains of ignatius, as we are informed by chrysostom and jerome, long remained interred in the cemetery of antioch, but finally--in the time of theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had previously been a temple of fortune. the story told, of course, is that the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the coliseum and carried from rome to antioch. after reposing there for some centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from rome to antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from antioch to rome. [ : ] the natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead of this double translation, the bones of ignatius had always remained in antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they had been brought back from rome was merely the explanation which reconciled the fact of their actually being in antioch with the legend of the ignatian epistles. the th of december is the date assigned to the death of ignatius in the martyrology, [ : ] and zahn admits that this interpretation is undeniable [ : ] moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated on that day in the greek churches and throughout the east. in the latin church it is kept on the st of february. there can be little doubt that this was the day of the translation of the relics to rome, and this was evidently the view of ruinart, who, although he could not positively contradict the views of his own church, says: "ignatii festum graeci vigesima die mensis decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse acta testantur; latini vero die prima februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [ : ] zahn [ : ] states that the feast of the translation in later calendars was celebrated on the th january, and he points out the evident ignorance which prevailed in the west regarding ignatius. [ : ] on the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess regarding the reign and character of trajan discredit the story that ignatius was sent to rome to be exposed to beasts in the coliseum; and all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the epistles themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in antioch. on the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the statement that ignatius was sent to rome is more or less directly based upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. and what is the value of any evidence emanating from the ignatian epistles and martyrologies? there are three martyrologies which, as ewald says, are "the one more fabulous than the other." there are fifteen epistles all equally purporting to be by ignatius, and most of them handed down together in mss., without any distinction. three of these, in latin only, are universally rejected, as are also other five epistles, of which there are greek, latin, and other versions. of the remaining seven there are two forms, one called the long recension and another shorter, known as the vossian epistles. the former is almost unanimously rejected as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics assert that the text of the vossian epistles is likewise very impure. besides these there is a still shorter version of three epistles only, the curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine letters of ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the epistles in any form. the second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but i venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous than in dealing with the martyr of antioch. the mere statement of the simple and acknowledged facts regarding the ignatian epistles is ample justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends dr. lightfoot, that "the whole of the ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud." even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as genuine more than the three short syriac letters [ : ] out of this mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. documents which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove anything. as i have shown, however, the vossian epistles, whatever the value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in favour of our gospels, rather discredit them. i have now minutely followed dr. lightfoot and dr. westcott in their attacks upon me in connection with eusebius and the ignatian epistles, and i trust that i have shown once for all that the charges of "misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. it is impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials, to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but i have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and i venture to think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made. iii. _polycarp of smyrna._ in my chapter on polycarp i state the various opinions expressed by critics regarding the authenticity of the epistle ascribed to him, and i more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide that it is either spurious or interpolated. that an epistle of polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts, but the proof that the epistle which is now extant was the actual epistle written by polycarp is not proven. dr. lightfoot's essay of course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. a large part of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom of polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly believed. the _chronicon_ of eusebius dates his death a.d. or , and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of statius quadratus. m. waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of asia minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided that statius quadratus was proconsul in a.d. - , and if polycarp was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death must have taken place in one of those years. having said so much in support of the authenticity of the epistle of polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been expected that dr. lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the gospels and their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those gospels record. he has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and does not say one word that i can discover regarding any supposed use of gospels in the epistle. for a complete discussion of analogies which other apologists have pointed out i must refer to _supernatural religion_ itself; [ : ] but i may here state the case in the strongest form for them. it is asserted that polycarp in this epistle uses expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in our gospels. it is not in the least pretended that the gospels are referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their authorship or composition. if, therefore, the use of the gospels could be established, and the absolute authenticity of the epistle, what could this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the reality of divine revelation? the mere existence of anonymous gospels would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty quite untouched. iv. _papias of hierapolis._ dr. lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of papias, although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second. i need not follow him minutely here, for i have treated the subject fully in _supernatural religion_, [ : ] to which i beg leave to refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is merely dr. lightfoot's reply. i will confine myself here to a few words on the fundamental question at issue. papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have written a gospel. it is true that what he says is of very little weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point, his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive. eusebius states that, in his last work, [ : ] "exposition of the lord's oracles" ([greek: logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), papias wrote as follows: "and the elder said this also: 'mark, having become the interpreter of peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by christ. for neither did he hear the lord, nor did he follow him; but afterwards, as i said, [attended] peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of giving a connected account of the lord's oracles [or discourses] ([greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn] or [greek: logôn).' so, then, mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein." [ : ] the first question which suggests itself is: does the description here given correspond with the gospel "according to mark" which we now possess? can our second gospel be considered a work composed "without recording in order what was either said or done by christ"? a negative answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar enquiries, and the application of the presbyter's words to it has consequently been denied by them. it does not follow from this that there has been any refusal to accept the words of papias as referring to a work which may have been the basis of the second gospel as we have it. however, i propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our second gospel. in the first place, the tradition distinctly states that mark, who is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of jesus, but that he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of peter. it is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy of mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false statement, but this does not add much value to his record. no one supposes that the writer of the second gospel deliberately invented what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker. the testimony of the second gospel is, according to this tradition, confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to attest miraculous pretensions. the tradition that mark derived his information from the preaching of peter is not supported by internal evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability. because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says so, is not strong evidence of the fact. it was the earnest desire of the early christians to connect apostles with the authorship of the gospels, and as mark is represented as the interpreter of peter, so luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason whatever for believing that paul ever saw jesus. comparison of the contents of the first three gospels, moreover, not only does not render more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. into this i shall not here go. setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability of the tradition recorded by papias regarding the gospel said to have been written by mark, i simply appeal to those who have rightly appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself seen nor heard jesus. it is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer examination of the supposed evidence. "but concerning matthew the following statement is made [by papias]: 'so then matthew ([greek: matthaios men oun]) composed the oracles in the hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'" [ : ] dr. lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the presbyter, and, although i think it probable that it was, i agree with him in this. the doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the statement of papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists, dr. lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. he accepts it in so far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "but it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct. it may be; it may not have been. this is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he said." [ : ] what a pity it is that dr. lightfoot does not always exercise this rigorous logic. if he did he would infallibly agree with the conclusions of _supernatural religion_. i shall presently state what inference dr. lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. if this doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from papias be as evidence? i cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt as to what the actual statement was. "matthew composed the oracles in the hebrew language," and not in greek, "and each one interpreted them as he could." the original work of matthew was written in hebrew: our first synoptic is a greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the original composition of matthew, whoever matthew may have been, but at the best can only be a free translation. a free translation, i say, because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. our synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if it be a version of the work referred to by papias, or the presbyter, a translation it must be. as it is not in its original form, however, and no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of matthew may be, the whole value of the statement of papias is lost. the inference which dr. lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw from the testimony of papias is in most curious contrast with his severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him. papias, or the presbyter, states regarding the hebrew oracles of matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." the use of the verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which papias contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. each one interpreted as he could when the oracles were written, but the necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and dr. lightfoot arrives at the conclusion: "in other words, it implies the existence of a recognised greek translation _when papias wrote_ ... but if a greek st. matthew existed in the time of papias we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our st. matthew." [ : ] it is very probable that, at the time when papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the "oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our st. matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. it is really not worth while again to discuss the point. when imagination is allowed to interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot well be predicated. this hypothesis still leaves us to account for the substitution of a greek gospel for the hebrew original of matthew, and dr. lightfoot does not assist us much. he demurs to my statement that our first gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been translated from the hebrew at all: "if he had said that it is not a homogeneous greek version of a homogeneous hebrew original this would have been nearer the truth." [ : ] that hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid of at all costs. dr. lightfoot is full of resources. we have seen that he has suggested that the account of papias of the origin may not have been correct. regarding the translation or the greek gospel we do not know exactly what papias said. "he may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena." how unlimited a field for conjecture is thus opened out. we do not know more of what papias said than eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may have said something more, which may have been consistent with any theory we may advance. "or, on the other hand," dr. lightfoot continues, "he may, as hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which some later fathers made of thinking that the gospel according to the hebrews was the original of our st. matthew." [ : ] who would think that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of vague evidence extracted from the fathers? it is true that dr. lightfoot continues: "in the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to conjecture. but meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to the accuracy of papias or to the identity of the document itself." [ : ] he thus seeks to reserve for himself any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of papias, and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. in fact, he clearly demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass. in admitting for a moment that papias may have mistaken the gospel of the hebrews "for the original of our st. matthew," dr. lightfoot, in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate hebrew work of matthew, has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. apart from the general flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of papias, the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake, papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation which dr. lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which he declares to have been our first gospel. it is well known at least that, although the gospel of the hebrews bore more analogy to our present gospel "according to matthew" than to any of the other three, it very distinctly differed from it. if, therefore, papias could quietly accept our greek matthew as an equivalent for the gospel of the hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents of the original. that papias was actually acquainted with the gospel according to the hebrews may be inferred from the statement of eusebius that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of st. john's gospel, vii. -viii. ), "which the gospel according to the hebrews contains." [ : ] if he exercised any critical power at all, he could not confound the greek matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes of dr. lightfoot's argument? dr. lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation, accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to matthew and called the "oracles" ([greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of discourses. the argument will be found in _supernatural religion_, [ : ] and need not here be repeated. i will confine myself to some points of dr. lightfoot's reply. he seems not to reject the suggestion with so much vigour as might have been expected. "the theory is not without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance." [ : ] indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is encumbered with the most serious difficulties." dr. lightfoot does not think that only [greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be called [greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant the restriction. [ : ] i had contended that "however much the signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [greek: ta logia]) became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of jesus, which were oracular or divine." [ : ] to this dr. lightfoot replies that if the objection has any force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that books which were regarded as scripture could not at this early date be called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings; _secondly_, that the gospel of st. matthew, in particular, could not at this time be regarded as scripture. both assumptions alike are contradicted by facts." [ : ] the second point he considers proved by the well-known passage in the epistle of barnabas. for the discussion regarding it i beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes. [ : ] i venture to say that it is impossible to prove that matthew's gospel was, at that time, considered "scripture," but, on the contrary, that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not. regarding the first point dr. lightfoot asserts: "the first is refuted by a large number of examples. st. paul, for instance, describes it as the special privilege of the jews that they had the keeping of 'the oracles of god' (rom. iii. ). can we suppose that he meant anything else but the old testament scriptures by this expression? is it possible that he would exclude the books of genesis, of joshua, of samuel and kings, or only include such fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of god? would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall ( cor. xi. _sq._), of the wanderings in the wilderness ( cor. x. _sq._), of sarah and hagar (gal. iv. _sq._)? does not the main part of his argument in the very next chapter (rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of god's dealings than his words? again, when the author of the epistle to the hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of god' (v. ), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the old testament. but if the language of the new testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary philo. in one place, he speaks of the words in deut. x. , 'the lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([greek: logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in gen. iv. : 'the lord god set a mark upon cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.' [ : ] from this and other passages it is clear that with philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a scripture. similarly clement of rome writes: 'ye know well the sacred scriptures, and have studied the oracles of god;' [ : ] and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in deut. ix. _sq._, exod. xxxii. _sq._, of which the point is not any divine precept or prediction, but _the example of moses_. a few years later polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the lord." [ : ] he then goes on to refer to irenaeus, clement of alexandria, origen, and basil, but i need not follow him to these later writers, but confine myself to that which i have quoted. "when paul writes in the epistle to the romans iii. , 'they were entrusted with the oracles of god,' can he mean anything else but the old testament scriptures, including the historical books?" argues dr. lightfoot. i maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or revelations of god, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately to the messianic prophecies. the advantage of the jews, in fact, according to paul here, was that to them were first communicated the divine oracles: that they were made the medium of god's utterances to mankind. there seems almost an echo of the expression in acts vii. , where stephen is represented as saying to the jews of their fathers on mount sinai, "who received living oracles ([greek: logia zônta]) to give unto us." of this nature were the "oracles of god" which were entrusted to the jews. further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles of god" (heb. v. ), is no application of the term to narrative, as dr. lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own teaching by old testament history; but the writer of the epistle clearly explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when he says: "god having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in his son." dr. lightfoot also urges that philo applies the term "oracle" ([greek: logion]) to the _narrative_ in gen. iv. , &c. the fact is, however, that philo considered almost every part of the old testament as allegorical, and held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled divine oracles. when he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative, but to the divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant manner of alexandrian typologists. dr. lightfoot does not refer to the expression of pet. iv. , "let him speak as the oracles of god" ([greek: hôs logia theou]), which shows the use of the word in the new testament. he does point out the passage in the "epistle of clement of rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell against him. "ye know well the sacred scriptures and have studied the oracles of god." the "oracles of god" are pointedly distinguished from the sacred scriptures, of which they form a part. these oracles are contained in the "sacred scriptures," but are not synonymous with the whole of them. dr. lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much "polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the lord," but i maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of jesus regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books. in replying to dr. lightfoot's chapter on the silence of eusebius, i have said all that is necessary regarding the other gospels in connection with papias. papias is the most interesting witness we have concerning the composition of the gospels. he has not told us much, but he has told us more than any previous writer. dr. lightfoot has not scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. it comes to this: we cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account of the gospels supposed to have been written by mark and matthew, and we have no other upon which to fall back. regarding the other two gospels, we have no information whatever from papias, whether correct or incorrect, and altogether this father does little or nothing towards establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of divine revelation. v. _melito of sardis--claudius apollinaris--polycrates._ throughout the whole of these essays, dr. lightfoot has shown the most complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the evidence regarding the gospels in early writings was undertaken in _supernatural religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands and misrepresents its argument from first to last. this becomes increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully denominates: "the later school of st. john." he evidently considers that he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as melito of sardis, claudius apollinaris and polycrates of ephesus, or from much more than suspected documents like the martyrdom of polycarp, that towards the last quarter of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four gospels. he really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these particular gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. i do not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that our four gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during this period of the second century. it is a very different matter to examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin, authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of miracles and witnesses for the reality of divine revelation. i cannot accuse myself of having misled dr. lightfoot on this point by any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my argument, either by accident or design, i venture to quote a few sentences from _supernatural religion_, both to justify myself and to restore the discussion to its proper lines. in winding up the first part of the work, which was principally concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, i said:-- "now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by supernatural agency ... in order, however, to render our conclusion complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the gospel miracles to exceptional attention. if, instead of being clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to miracles and the reality of divine revelation will be easy and conclusive." [ : ] before commencing the examination of the evidence for the gospels, i was careful to state the principles upon which i considered it right to proceed. i said: "before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date, authorship, and character of the gospels, it may be well to make a few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of criticism. we shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to the date at which any of the gospels was actually written, but simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors, certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely conjectured or inferred_ ... we propose, therefore, as exhaustively as possible, to search all the writings of the early church for information regarding the gospels, and to examine even the alleged indications of their use ... it is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind that a great number of gospels existed in the early church which are no longer extant, and of most of which even the names are lost. we need not here do more than refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement of the author of the third gospel: 'forasmuch as many ([greek: polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. it is, therefore, evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar works were already in circulation. looking at the close similarity of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other and to our gospels, and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'gospel according to the hebrews.' when, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with passages which are found in our gospels, the source of which, however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof that the quotation is necessarily from our gospels, and not from some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from sources different from our gospels.... but whilst similarity to our gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot _prove_ the use of our gospels, variation from them would suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our gospels cannot in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... it is unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from apostolic times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of our gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away. indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and a direct divine revelation like ecclesiastical christianity." [ : ] dr. lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his essay on the silence of eusebius, and has been so particular in calling attention to any alteration i have made in my text; and it might have been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which he can bring forward against the canons themselves. the course he has adopted, i can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after all, with many it is quite as effective. it may be well that i should here again illustrate the necessity for such canons of criticism as i have indicated above, and which can be done very simply from our own gospels: "not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and, discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the gospels, to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it stands, from another source. as an illustration, let us for a moment suppose the 'gospel according to luke' to have been lost, like the 'gospel according to the hebrews' and so many others. in the works of one of the fathers we discover the following quotation from an unnamed evangelical work: 'and he said unto them ([greek: elegen de pros autous]): 'the harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. go your ways ([greek: hupagete]): behold, i send you forth as lambs ([greek: arnas]) in the midst of wolves.' following the system adopted in regard to justin and others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first gospel--that is to say, matt ix, : 'then saith he unto his disciples ([greek: tote legei tois mathêtais autou]), the harvest,' &c.; and matt. x. : 'behold, i ([greek: egô]) send you forth as sheep' ([greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,' &c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. it would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the probability of a different source, and still more so to point out that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context, might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the first gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation was taken from that and from no other gospel. the passage, however, is a literal quotation from luke x. - , which, as we have assumed, had been lost. "again, still supposing the third gospel no longer extant, we might find the following quotation in a work of the fathers: 'take heed to yourselves ([greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy ([greek: hêtis estin hupocrisis]). for there is nothing covered up ([greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' it would, of course, be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of our first gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the father, and not a part of the quotation at all. the two verses are matt. xvi. , 'beware and take heed ([greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees ([greek: kai saddoukaiôn]), and matt. x. , '... for ([greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([greek: kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not be known.' the sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in separate portions of the gospel. how wrong such a system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to justin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'gospel according to luke,' xii. - ." [ : ] "if we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion. supposing the third gospel to be lost, what would be the source assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed gospel in the work of one of the fathers? 'no servant ([greek: oudeis oiketês]) can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. ye cannot serve god and mammon.' of course the passage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of matt. vi. , with which it perfectly corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word, [greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident and very natural amplification of the simple [greek: oudeis] of the first gospel. yet this passage, only differing by the single word from matthew, is a literal quotation from the gospel according to luke xvi. . or, to take another instance, supposing the third gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the fathers: 'beware ([greek: prosechete]) of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([greek: philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.' this would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation from memory of mark xii. - , from which it only differs in a couple of words. it is, however, a literal quotation of luke xx. - , yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not derived from mark, but from a lost gospel. to quote one more instance, let us suppose the 'gospel according to mark' no longer extant, and that in some early work there existed the following passage: 'it is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([greek: trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god.' this of course would be claimed as a quotation from memory of matt. xix. , with which it agrees with the exception of the substitution of [greek: trupêmatos] for [greek: trumalias]. it would not the less have been an exact quotation from mark x. ." [ : ] illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other gospels existed (luke i. ), which can only very slowly have disappeared from circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to others in our gospels actually proves that they must have been derived from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. it is not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the gospels, but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything. coming now more directly to the essay on "the later school of st. john," it is curious to find dr. lightfoot setting in the very foreground the account of polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious." [ : ] they have been considered so by men like keim, schürer, lipsius, and holtzmann. the account has too much need to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the gospels. dr. lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the life and passion of christ runs through the document," [ : ] and it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of the passion, as recorded by the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with st. john," that he relies, in referring to the martyrdom. i need scarcely reply that not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document, is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship and trustworthiness. i shall have more to say regarding dr. lightfoot in connection with this document further on. the same remark applies to melito of sardis. i have fully discussed [ : ] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially as dr. lightfoot does not advance any new argument. he has said nothing which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments attributed to this father. in any case the use which dr. lightfoot chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that melito exhibits full knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the four canonical gospels. waiving all discussion of the authenticity of the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, i simply enquire what this proves? does anyone doubt that melito of sardis, in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly versed in gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our four gospels? the only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the fact. melito does not refer to a single gospel by name. he does not add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the gospels or their composers. he does not, indeed, mention any writing of the new testament. if his words regarding the "books of the old testament" imply "a corresponding christian literature which he regarded as the books of the new testament," [ : ] which i deny, what is gained? even in that case "we cannot," as dr. lardner frankly states, "infer the names or the exact number of those books." as for adding anything to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached by dr. lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for which his testimony is examined is gone. the elaborate display of vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if, when to his own satisfaction, dr. lightfoot cannot turn the evidence of melito to greater account. [ : ] nor is he much more fortunate in the case of claudius apollinaris, [ : ] whose "apology" may be dated about a.d. - . in an extract preserved in the _paschal chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the writer in connection with the paschal festival says that "they affirm that matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the gospels seem to be at variance with one another." [ : ] if, therefore, the passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic, and by inference to the fourth gospel. he says nothing of the composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show that they were accepted in his time. this may seem a good deal when we consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of divine revelation. with regard to polycrates of ephesus i need say very little. eusebius preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years of the second century," [ : ] when victor of rome attempted to force the western usage with respect to easter on the asiatic christians. in this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the lord," which occurs in the fourth gospel. nothing could more forcibly show the meagreness of our information regarding the gospels than that such a phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. in fact the slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when the importance which is attached to them is taken into account. vi. _the churches of gaul._ a severe persecution broke out in the year a.d. , under marcus aurelius, in the cities of vienne and lyons, on the rhone, and an account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in asia and phrygia." this epistle is in great part preserved to us by eusebius (_h.e._ v. ), and it is to a consideration of its contents that dr. lightfoot devotes his essay on the churches of gaul. but for the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in _supernatural religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and a half after the death of jesus, but it is instructive to show how exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those documents. i may at once say that no writing of the new testament is directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity to passages found in these writings. with the complete unconsciousness which i have pointed out that dr. lightfoot affects regarding the object and requirements of my argument, dr. lightfoot is, of course, indignant that i will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. i have elsewhere fully discussed these, [ : ] and i need only refer to some portions of his essay here. "of vettius epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that, though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder zacharias ([greek: sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou zacharious marturia]), for verily ([greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless_.' here we have the same words, and in the same order, which are used of zacharias and elizabeth in st. luke (i. ): 'and zacharias, his father, was filled with the holy ghost.'" [ : ] dr. lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression "the testimony of zacharias" ([greek: tê zachariou marturia]), which he points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom." by a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition. dr. lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which i had sent to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon the rendering "by" in my text. very naturally a printer's error could not extend to my argument. the following is what i say regarding the passage in my complete edition: "the epistle is an account of the persecution of the christian community of vienne and lyons, and vettius epagathus is the first of the martyrs who is named in it: [greek: marturia] was at that time the term used to express the supreme testimony of christians-- martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with zacharias. it is, we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the word [greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere description of the character of zacharias given by some other writer." this is the interpretation which is adopted by tischendorf, hilgenfeld, and many eminent critics. it will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless," which is supposed to be taken from luke i. , is there applied to zacharias and elizabeth, the father and mother of john the baptist, but the gospel does not say anything of this zacharias having suffered martyrdom. the allusion in luke xi. (matt. xxiii. ) is almost universally admitted to be to another zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in chron. xxiv. . "since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of zacharias, the father of john the baptist, when using the expressions which are supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in the synoptic? when we examine the matter more closely we find that, although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any narrative of the birth of john the baptist, that portion of the gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered an original production by the third synoptist, but, like the rest of his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written narratives. ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first chapters of luke (i. -ii. ) to what he terms 'the eighth recognisable book.'" [ : ] no apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third gospel can have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. where, then, did he get his information? surely not from oral tradition limited to himself. the whole character of the narrative, even apart from the prologue to the gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work, would lead us to infer a written source. "the fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the history of zacharias, the father of the baptist, was given, and in which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the 'protevangelium jacobi,' which contains it. tischendorf, who does not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the scriptures of the new testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the martyrdom of zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the 'protevangelium jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which he considers was also used by justin, as hilgenfeld had already observed. tischendorf and hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference to zacharias which we have quoted indicates acquaintance with a gospel different from our third synoptic." [ : ] such being the state of the case, i would ask any impartial reader whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced without the slightest indication of the source from which they were derived, must have been quoted from our third gospel, and cannot have been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in circulation before that gospel was written. the reply of everyone accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written. "but, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third gospel in this way" (proceeds dr. lightfoot), "what will he say to those with the acts? in this same letter of the gallican churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like stephen, the perfect martyr, "lord, lay not this sin to their charge.'" will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them another acts, containing words identical with our acts, just as he supposes them to have had another gospel, containing words identical with our third gospel? or, will he allow this account to have been taken from acts vii. , with which it coincides? but in this latter case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of st. luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?" [ : ] my reply to this is: "there is no mention of the acts of the apostles in the epistle, and the source from which the writers obtained their information about stephen, is, of course, not stated. if there really was a martyr of the name of stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him, the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may well have remained in the church, or have been recorded in writings then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as bleek, ewald, meyer, neander, de wette) conjecture that the author of acts derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does not prove the use of the acts. if, on the other hand, there never was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story must be considered an original invention by the author of acts, then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the use of the acts. supposing that the use of acts be held to be thus indicated, what does this prove? merely that the 'acts of the apostles' were in existence in the year - , when the epistle of vienne and lyons was written. no light whatever would thus be thrown upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be in the slightest degree established." [ : ] apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under examination, however, i have never suggested, much less asserted, that the "acts of the apostles" was not in existence at this date. the only interest attachable to the question is, as i have before said, the paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. but the apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took in hand" at an early date to set forth the christian story, and that the books of our new testament did not constitute the whole of christian literature in circulation in the early days of the church. i need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the fourth gospel. "there shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth god service." the gospel has: "there cometh an hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain that the use of this gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any other, is proved. if even this were conceded, the passage does not add one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the gospel. dr. lightfoot says "the author of _supernatural religion_ maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the outside, the very church to which irenaeus belonged, in a public document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our canonical gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal gospels instead. he maintains this though the quotations in question are actually found in our canonical gospels." [ : ] really, dr. lightfoot betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did contain similar passages to those in debate. vii. _tatian's 'diatessaron.'_ i need not reply at any length to dr. lightfoot's essay on the _diatessaron_ of tatian, and i must refer those who wish to see what i had to say on the subject to _supernatural religion_. [ : ] i may here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has appeared since the publication of my work. an armenian translation of what is alleged to be the commentary of ephraem syrus on tatian's _diatessaron_ was published as long ago as , but failed to attract critical attention. in , however, a latin translation of this work by aucher and moesinger was issued, and this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument regarding tatian's use of gospels. only last year, a still more important addition to critical materials was made by the publication in rome of an alleged arabic version of tatian's _diatessaron_ itself, with a latin translation by ciasca. these works were not before dr. lightfoot when he wrote his essay on tatian in , and he only refers to them in a note in his present volume. he entertains no doubt as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the _diatessaron_ of tatian. in order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will be well to state again what is known regarding tatian's work. eusebius is the first writer who mentions it. he says--and to avoid all dispute i give dr. lightfoot's rendering:-- "tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, i know not how ([greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the gospels, and called it _diatessaron_. this work is current in some quarters (with some persons) even to the present day." [ : ] i argued that this statement indicates that eusebius was not personally acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere hearsay. dr. lightfoot replies-- "his inference, however, from the expression 'i know not how' is altogether unwarranted. so far from implying that eusebius had no personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve the method. in idiomatic english it signifies 'i cannot think what he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. i have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of origen against celsus alone, [ : ] where it commonly refers to celsus' work which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [ : ] if this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally certain that [greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance, although dr. lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget the fact. in any case some of the best critics draw the same inference from the phrase here that i do, more especially as eusebius does not speak further or more definitely of the _diatessaron_, amongst whom i may name credner, hilgenfeld, holtzmann, reuss and scholten; and should these not have weight with him i may refer dr. lightfoot to zahn, [ : ] and even to dr. westcott [ : ] and professor hemphill. [ : ] eusebius says nothing more of the _diatessaron_ of tatian and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work. dr. lightfoot supposes that i had overlooked the testimony of the _doctrine of addai_, an apocryphal syriac work, published in by dr. phillips after _supernatural religion_ was written. i did not overlook it, but i considered it of too little critical value to require much notice in later editions of the work. the _doctrine of addai_ is conjecturally dated by dr. lightfoot about the middle of the third century, [ : ] and it might with greater certainty be placed much later. the passage to which he points is one in which it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with the old testament, "the new of the _diatessaron_." this is assumed to be tatian's "harmony of the gospels," and i shall not further argue the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding of its character and contents? the next witness, taking them in the order in which dr. lightfoot cites them, is dionysius bar-salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century. in his commentary on the gospels he writes:-- "tatian, the disciple of justin, the philosopher and martyr, selected and patched together from the four gospels and constructed a gospel, which he called _diatessaron_--that is, _miscellanies_. on this work mar ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement was--_in the beginning was the word_. elias of salamia, who is also called aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the _diatessaron_ of ammonius, mentioned by eusebius in his prologue to the canons which he made for the gospel. elias sought for that _diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed this after its likeness. and the said elias finds fault with several things in the canons of eusebius, and points out errors in them, and rightly. but this copy (work) which elias composed is not often met with." [ : ] this information regarding ephraem--who died about a.d. --be it remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. it is important to note, however, that a second _diatessaron_, prepared by ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by eusebius in his epistle to carpianus, and further that bar-salibi speaks of a third, composed on the same lines by elias. dr. lightfoot disposes of the _diatessaron_ of ammonius in a very decided way. he says: "it was quite different in its character from the _diatessaron_ of tatian. the _diatessaron_ of tatian was a patchwork of the four gospels, commencing with the preface of st. john. the work of ammonius took the gospel of st. matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages from the other gospels. the principle of the one was _amalgamation_; of the other, _comparison_. no one who had seen the two works could confuse them, though they bore the same name, _diatessaron_. eusebius keeps them quite distinct. so does bar-salibi. later on in his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same place." [ : ] doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it. the statement of dr. lightfoot quoted above, that the _diatessaron_ of ammonius "took the gospel of st. matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite different in its character from the _diatessaron_ of tatian," on the supposition that the arabic translation lately published represents the work of tatian. i will quote what professor hemphill says regarding it, in preference to making any statement of my own:-- "on examining the _diatessaron_ as translated into latin from this arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the sermon on the mount to the last supper (§§ - ) that tatian, like his brother harmonist ammonius, took st. matthew as the basis of his work ... st. mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with st. matthew in the _diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out of which incidents have been incorporated. st. luke, on the other hand, is employed by tatian, as also in a lesser degree is st. john, in complete defiance of chronological order." [ : ] this is not quite so different from the description of the _diatessaron_ of ammonius, which dr. lightfoot quotes:-- "he placed side by side with the gospel according to matthew the corresponding passages of the other evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [ : ] the next witness cited is theodoret, bishop of cyrus, writing about a.d. , and i need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes the suppression of some copies of tatian's work in his diocese, which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine," who did not perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and other passages showing the lord to have been born of the seed of david after the flesh were suppressed. it is a fact, however, which even zahn points out, that, in the alleged _diatessaron_ of ephraem, these passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [ : ] as they also do in the arabic translation. this is the only definite information which we possess of the contents of the _diatessaron_ beyond the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered works. i need not further discuss here the statement of epiphanius that some called tatian's _diatessaron_ the gospel according to the hebrews. epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same ignorance as to its character. it is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding the _diatessaron_ of tatian. as dr. donaldson said long ago: "we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself." [ : ] we may now come to the documents recently published. the ms. of the armenian version of the commentary ascribed to ephraem is dated a.d. , and moesinger declares that it is translated from the syriac, of which it is said to retain many traces. [ : ] he states that in the judgment of the mechitarist fathers the translation dates from about the fifth century, [ : ] but an opinion on such a point can only be received with great caution. the name of tatian is not mentioned as the author of the "harmony," and the question is open as to whether the authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to ephraem syrus. in any case there can be no doubt that the armenian work is a translation. the arabic work published by ciasca, and supposed to be a version of tatian's _diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one belonging to the vatican library and the other forwarded to rome from egypt by the vicar apostolic of the catholic copts. the latter ms. states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an arabic translation of the _diatessaron_ of tatian, made from the syriac by the presbyter abû-l-pharag abdullah ben-at-tib, who is believed to have flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the syriac copy is given, which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end of the ninth century. a note in the vatican ms. also ascribes the original work to tatian. these notes constitute the principal or only ground for connecting tatian's name with the "harmony." so little is known regarding the _diatessaron_ of tatian that even the language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. the name would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a greek composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere fact that it does not seem to have been known to greek fathers, and that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it was written in syriac. nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can be produced. this alone shows how little we really know of the original. the recently discovered works, being in arabic and armenian, even supposing them to be translations from the syriac and that the _diatessaron_ was composed in syriac, can only indirectly represent the original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work. between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision, the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured. it is certain that the name of tatian did not appear as the author of the _diatessaron_. [ : ] this is obvious from the very nature of the composition and its object. we have met with three works of this description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have existed. as the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the first idea of anyone meeting with such a harmony must have been that it was the _diatessaron_ of tatian. what means could there be of correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? it is not as if such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of gospels already current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of an arranger's name? an illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of victor of capua, and i will allow dr. lightfoot himself to tell the story. "victor, who flourished about a.d. , happened to stumble upon an anonymous harmony or digest of the gospels, and began in consequence to investigate the authorship. he found two notices in eusebius of such harmonies; one in the _epistle to carpianus_ prefixed to the canons, relating to the work of ammonius; another in the _ecclesiastical history_, relating to that of tatian. assuming that the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour of the latter, because it does not give st. matthew continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as eusebius states ammonius to have done. all this victor tells us in the preface to this anonymous harmony, which he publishes in a latin dress. "there can be no doubt that victor was mistaken about the authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general plan as tatian's, it does not begin with john i. , but with luke i. , and it does contain the genealogies. it belongs, therefore, at least in its present form, neither to tatian nor to ammonius." [ : ] how this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the harmonist, as he might well have done in imitation of tatian, commenced with the words, "in the beginning was the word"! the most instructive part is still to come, however, for although in may dr. lightfoot says: "there can be no doubt that victor was mistaken about the authorship," &c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to the newly-discovered works, he adds: "on the relation of victor's _diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of tatian_ ... see hemphill's _diatessaron_." [ : ] on turning to professor hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is discovered:-- "it will be remembered that victor, bishop of capua, in the year , found a latin harmony or compilation of the four gospels without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. i have already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of eusebius, he was led to ascribe his discovery to tatian. this conclusion was generally traversed by church writers, and victor was supposed to have made a mistake. he is now, however, proved to have been a better judge than his critics, for, as dr. wace was the first to point out, a comparison of this latin harmony with the ephraem fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari passu_." [ : ] but how about luke i. as the beginning? and the genealogies? nothing could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about such works. shall we one day discover that victor was equally right about the reading _diapente_? i have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing how little we know of the _diatessaron_ of tatian and, i may add, of the commentary of ephraem syrus and the work on which it is based. it is not at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time, i may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the assumption made by dr. lightfoot that we have actually recovered the _diatessaron_ of tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or less corresponding with our four gospels. neither in the "harmony" itself nor in the supposed commentary of ephraem syrus is the name of any of the evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. if these works were, therefore, the veritable _diatessaron_ of tatian and the commentary of ephraem upon it, the gospels would not be rendered more credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of divine revelation. * * * * * it may not be uninstructive if i take the liberty of quoting here some arguments of dr. lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "letter of the smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of polycarp. [ : ] "the miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an objection to the genuineness of the document. yet, considering all the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the supernatural in the narrative. compared with records of early christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more recent history of the church--as, for instance, the rise of jesuitism or of wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity. "the one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. yet even this might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. but it will be shown hereafter (p. ) that there are excellent reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which had no place in the original document. beyond this we have the voice from heaven calling to polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ ). but the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. the brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. this was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human utterance. again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr like a sail swelled by the wind (§ ). but this may be explained as a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the martyrdoms of savonarola and of hooper. again, there is the sweet scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ ); but this phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. in another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions at vienne and lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are told (euseb. _h.e._ v. , § ) that the heroic martyrs, as they stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet odour of christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had been anointed with material ointment' ([greek: hôste enious doxai kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). yet there was no pyre and no burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must have supplied the incident. indeed, this account of the gallican martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more startling occurrences than the record of polycarp's fate. "more or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the _prophetic insight_ attributed to polycarp. but what does this amount to? it is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ ). but the future tense, 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not the statement of a fact. we may, indeed, accept this qualification as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. the only example of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo martyrdom by fire. but what more natural than this presentiment, when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common instrument of death? i need not stop here to discuss how far a prescience may be vouchsafed to god's saints. even 'old experience' is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' it is sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to a single authentic biography of any christian hero--certainly of any christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called, is not recorded. pontius, the disciple and biographer of cyprian, relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his master, and adds: 'quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_vit. et pass. cypr._ , )" [ : ] i am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written long after the essays on _supernatural religion_, as it presents dr. lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards freedom which it exhibits. i quite agree with him that the presence of supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the authenticity of an early christian writing, but the promptitude with which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into naturalism, is worthy of professor huxley. he now understands, without doubt, the reason why i demand such clear and conclusive evidence of miracles, and why i refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and insufficient testimony. in fact, he cannot complain that i feel bound to explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the imagination and devout reverence of early christians to such mistakes, i resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations. viii. conclusions. we have seen that divine revelation could only be necessary or conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as divine. it is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the specific revelation which we are considering, the very substance of which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be pronounced "the wildest delusions." "by no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements." on examining the alleged miraculous evidence for christianity as divine revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are performed by various spiritual beings, satanic as well as divine, and are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive and for the trial of faith. as the doctrines supposed to be revealed are beyond reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a nature could sufficiently attest them. this alone would disqualify the christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of performing. the supposed miraculous evidence for the divine revelation, moreover, is not only without any special divine character, being avowedly common also to satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or details. similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first promulgation of christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after it. a stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment. the evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the christian miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. the selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more characteristic of human weakness than of divine power. the true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. there is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. no miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of imagination. the test applied to the largest class of miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all miraculous pretension. there is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural interference with nature. the assertion that spurious miracles have sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a single valid argument to support it. history clearly demonstrates that, wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and 'miraculous' are convertible terms. on the other hand, in proportion as knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles have ceased. the effect of science, however, is not limited to the present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken order. ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for ever annihilated them. to justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an infinite personal god; and second, a divine design of revelation, the execution of which necessarily involves supernatural action. miracles, it is argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this infinite personal god for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the divine design. neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably maintained. the assumption of an infinite personal god: a being at once limited and unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself. moreover, the assumption of a god working miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order of nature. the allegation of a specific divine cause of miracles is further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is avowedly not limited to a personal god, but is also ascribed to other spiritual beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not with the other. on the other hand, the assumption of a divine design of revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived from the very revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise the assumption of a personal god, and both are equally vicious as arguments. the circumstances which are supposed to require this divine design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and opposed to all the results of science. nature does not countenance any theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as inconsistent with divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them are opposed to justice and morality. such assumptions are essentially inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena must at least be antecedently incredible. in the absence of absolute knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. on the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and superstition are present. when the report of the original witnesses only reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the probability of error is further increased. thus the allegation of miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation and testimony. the history of miraculous pretension in the world and the circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. when we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the christian miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising the preceding considerations. on the contrary, we find that the case turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years ago. it is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should be placed beyond all doubt. they must proceed from eye-witnesses capable of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. our four gospels, however, are strictly anonymous works. the superscriptions which now distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the gospels. of the writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and third synoptics neither having been personal followers of jesus nor eye-witnesses of the events they describe. under these circumstances, we are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical gospels. in examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite principles. without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the date or origin of our gospels, we simply searched the writings of the fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for information regarding the composition and character of these works and even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these could prove little beyond the mere existence of the gospels used at the date of the writer. in the latter and minor investigation, we were guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based upon the simplest laws of evidence. we found that the writings of the fathers, during a century and a half after the death of jesus, are a complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and character of our gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition preserved by papias, after the middle of the second century, the details of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been composed by matthew and mark. there is thus no evidence whatever directly connecting any of the canonical gospels with the writers to whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. with one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous use of any of our gospels in the early church. this fact, of course, does not justify the conclusion that none of these gospels was actually in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence shows that there is no positive proof that they were. the exception to which we refer is marcion's gospel, which was, we think, based upon our third synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the existence of that work. marcion, however, does not give the slightest information as to the authorship of the gospel, and his charges against it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to its infallible character. the canonical gospels continue to the end anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. they do not themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from the ordinary rules of criticism. internal evidence does not modify the inferences from external testimony. apart from continual minor contradictions throughout the first three gospels, it is impossible to reconcile the representations of the synoptics with those of the fourth gospel. they mutually destroy each other as evidence. they must be pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. they cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of divine revelation. applying similar tests to the acts of the apostles we arrived at similar results. acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the third synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. there is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for it any serious consideration. when the statements of the author are compared with the emphatic declarations of the apostle paul and with authentic accounts of the development of the early christian church, it becomes evident that the acts of the apostles, as might have been supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so suspiciously abound. the remaining books of the new testament canon required no separate examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional testimony to the reality of divine revelation, beyond the implied belief in such doctrines as the incarnation and resurrection. it is unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the apostles believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the catholic epistles and apocalypse. in like manner, the recognition as genuine of four epistles of paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters attributed to him. the general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the church is brought to a practical test in the case of the apostle paul. after elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the unconscious testimony of paul clearly demonstrates the facility with which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into supernatural occurrences. as a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the cardinal dogmas of christianity, the resurrection and ascension of jesus. first taking the four gospels, we found that their accounts of these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the statements of the unknown authors. taking next the testimony of paul, which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries of christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. his so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the statements in the gospels, and without other attestation than the bare fact that it is repeated by paul, who doubtless believed it, although he had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the risen jesus which he so briefly catalogues. paul's own personal testimony to the resurrection is limited to a vision of jesus, of which we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of paul, of which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of jesus. the testimony of paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an earnest denial of the great christian dogma, emphasised by the active persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the fact of the resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is not an argument of convincing force. we were compelled to pronounce the evidence for the resurrection and ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. there is no reason given, or even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in the case of any common question of property or title before a legal tribunal. on the contrary, the more momentous the point to be established, the more complete must be the proof required. if we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established. there is nothing original in the claim of christianity to be regarded as divine revelation, and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. there has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. there is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of christianity which has not substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single phase of the supernatural history of the christ, from his miraculous conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. the same may be said even of the moral teaching of christianity, the elevated precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated by ancient sages and philosophers. that this enquiry into the reality of divine revelation has been limited to the claim of christianity has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to the only religion in connection with which it could practically interest us now. there is nothing in the history and achievements of christianity which can be considered characteristic of a religion divinely revealed for the salvation of mankind. originally said to have been communicated to a single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of god, for whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the present day. after more than eighteen centuries, this divine scheme of salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a third of the human race, and if, in a census of christendom, distinction could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as supernatural religion, christianity would take a much lower numerical position. sâkya muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries never sought converts in the west. [ : ] considered as a scheme divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by god himself incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate for a system of elevated morality. we shall probably never be able to determine how far the great teacher may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. it is to the excited veneration of the followers of jesus, however, that we owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and people. we may look in vain even in the synoptic gospels for the doctrines elaborated in the pauline epistles and the gospel of ephesus. the great transformation of christianity was effected by men who had never seen jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after it had become transmuted by tradition. the fervid imagination of the east constructed christian theology. it is not difficult to follow the development of the creeds of the church, and it is certainly most instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas were expanded by pious enthusiasm. the new testament alone represents several stages of dogmatic evolution. before his first followers had passed away the process of transformation had commenced. the disciples, who had so often misunderstood the teaching of jesus during his life, piously distorted it after his death. his simple lessons of meekness and humility were soon forgotten. with lamentable rapidity, the elaborate structure of ecclesiastical christianity, following stereotyped lines of human superstition and deeply coloured by alexandrian philosophy, displaced the sublime morality of jesus. doctrinal controversy, which commenced amongst the very apostles, has ever since divided the unity of the christian body. the perverted ingenuity of successive generations of churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of immaculate conception and papal infallibility. it is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a substitute for the shattered idol. to this we may reply that speech or silence does not alter the reality of things. the recognition of truth cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by considerations of spurious expediency. its declaration in a serious and suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be premature. its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. in so far as morality is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. how far christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here venture adequately to discuss. we may emphatically assert, however, that whatever beneficial effect christianity has produced has been due, not to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. dogmatic theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. science has been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of genesis. almost every great advance which has been made towards enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema of the church. submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. "except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of doctors of divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of assimilation by the virile mind. even now, the friction of theological resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. the early enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals sufficiently observed. it is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a divine institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of social experience. the choice of a noble life is no longer a theological question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have finally expired. morality, which has ever changed its complexion and modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. if we are disposed to say: _cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can as well be produced by social compulsion. but if we have ever been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as essential to christianity. as to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. can truth by any means be made less true? can reality be melted into thin air? the revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an illusion, and that which is left is the truth. losing belief in it and its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and green shades before him, melts swiftly away. there were no cool fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the desert with its barrenness. not so, is the friendly warning; seek not vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other horizons and to surer hopes. do not waste life clinging to ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. what should we think of the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? whose fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? whose folly is it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five than to know that they only make four? this folly is theirs who represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special illusions, which they have religiously adopted. to discover that a former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of existence. the sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we believe it to be noon or not. it is idle and foolish, if human, to repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. the argument so often employed by theologians that divine revelation is necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that revelation are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived from the revelation which it seeks to maintain. the only thing absolutely necessary for man is truth; and to that, and that alone, must our moral consciousness adapt itself. reason and experience forbid the expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through natural channels. we might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished as supernaturally informed. to complain that we do not know all that we desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. it is tantamount to complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. to attain the full altitude of the knowable, whatever that may be, should be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. we may be certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of reason is as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. man may know all that man requires to know. we gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our theology is human invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. we are freed from the incubus of base hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of divine government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the place of holiness. if we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic visions of future blessedness, the details of which are either of unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [greek: aiônios], and our eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. at the end of life there may be no definite vista of a heaven glowing with the light of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable horror of a purgatory or a hell lurid with flames for the helpless victims of an unjust but omnipotent creator. to entertain such libellous representations at all as part of the contents of "divine revelation," it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways of the god of revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty despot. but now the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns to the jewish superstition from which it sprang. as myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be baseless, the power of supernatural christianity will doubtless pass away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although it cannot here be fully discussed. if the pictures which have filled for so long the horizon of the future must vanish, no hideous blank can rightly be maintained in their place. we should clearly distinguish between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. that mysterious unknown or unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. [endnotes] [ : ] originally published in the _fortnightly review_, january , . [ : ] _on the canon_, p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. , note . [ : ] at the end of this note dr. westcott adds, "indeed, from the similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards referred to papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this interpretation is one from papias' _exposition_." [ : ] _reliq. sacrae_, i. p. f. [ : ] _lehre pers. christ_, i. p. f., anm. , p. , anm, . [ : ] _theol. jahrb. _ , p. , anm. ; cf. , p. , anm. . [ : ] _synops. evang._, proleg. xxxi. [ : ] _komm. ev. des johannes_, p. f. [ : ] _die zeugn. ev. joh._ p. f. [ : ] _basilides_, p. f. [ : ] _zeitschr. für wiss. theol._ , p. , anm. , , p. , anm. ; cf. , p. f., "die evangelien," p. , anm. . [ : ] _der johann. ursprung des viert. evang._ , p. . [ : ] _th. stud. u. krit._ , p. . [ : ] _intro. n.t._ ii. p. f. [ : ] _ibid._ ii. p. . [ : ] the work was all printed, and i could only reprint the sheet with such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part itself. [ : ] dr. lightfoot makes use of my second edition. [ : ] _contemporary review_, december, p. , n. ; _essays on s.r._ p. , n. . [ : ] professor hofstede de groot, in advancing this passage after the example of tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within brackets. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. f. [ : ] _contemporary review_, december, p. f.; _essays on s.r._ p. . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. ff. [ : ] _wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. f. [ : ] the translation in scholten's work is substantially the same as tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which is of no importance. upon this, however, scholten argues that celsus is treated as a contemporary. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. ff. [ : ] i may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation attacked by dr. lightfoot. he sneers at such a rendering as [greek: ho logos edêlou], "scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase from justin martyr (ii. ). the slight liberty taken with the tense is surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest i may point out that prudentius maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and otto "... effatum declarare." they occur in reference to passages from the old testament quoted in controversy with a jew. the next passage is [greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which dr. lightfoot says is rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. the phrase occurs in contrasting the words of matt. v. , [greek: all' hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên allên], with a passage in athenagoras, [greek: alla tois men kan kata korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês meros]. in endeavouring to convey to the english reader some idea of the linguistic difference, i rendered the latter (ii. ), "but to those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three greek words after "side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the sake of brevity, the double expression in the words i have italicised. dr. lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." the passage from tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which reason, although the latin is given below, the word was introduced into the text. it was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and meaning of "quem caederet," but i ventured to paraphrase the words and their context, instead of translating them. in this sentence, i may say, the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter tertullian proceeds to press against marcion his charge of mutilating the gospel of luke, and i desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the assurance of the subsequent charge. i had imagined that no one could have doubted that luke is represented as one of the "commentatores." [ : ] i altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, as dr. lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that i had clearly shown i was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting the critical judgment of others, that i did not perceive the absence of the words given above. [ : ] dr. lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my having been misled by the "nur" of credner; but so scrupulous a critic might have mentioned that i not only refer to credner for this argument, but also to _de wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ joh. dem taüfer wie der synoptiker den beinamen [greek: ho baptistês] giebt" (_einl. n.t._ p. ), and to _bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges mal" (_beiträge_, p. , and _einl. n.t._ p. ), which could not be misread. [ : ] _contemporary review_, december, p. ; _essays on s.r._ p. f. [ : ] clem. alex. _strom._ vii. - . dr. westcott gives the above reference, but does not quote the passage. [ : ] dr. westcott quotes the passage relative to matthias. [ : ] _canon_, p. f. [ : ] the same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by tischendorf, from clement of alexandria and epiphanius. [ : ] luthardt, _der johann. ursprung des viert. evang._ , p. f. [ : ] _strom._ vii. , § . [ : ] _canon_, p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, december, p. [_essays_, p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, december, p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _a crit. history of chr. lit. and doctrine_, i. f. i do not refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. [_ibid._ p. f.] [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. f. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. f. [_ibid._ p. f.] [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. ff. [ : ] _canon_, p. f. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. , note [_ibid._ p. , n. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. , note . dr. lightfoot, of course, "can hardly suppose" that "i had read the passage to which i refer." [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] i cannot go through every instance, but i may briefly say that such a passage as "ye are of your father the devil" and the passage matt. xi. _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the contrast between the fourth gospel and the synoptics; and that the allusion to paul's teaching in the apocalypse is in no way excluded even by his death. regarding the relations between paul and the "pillar" apostles, i hope to speak hereafter. i must maintain that my argument regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. ff.) sufficiently meets the reasoning to which dr. lightfoot refers. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. f. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._ p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. . [ : ] _ibid._ ii. p. . [ : ] see acts iv. . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. . [ : ] _ibid._ ii, p. . [ : ] _der johann. ursp. des viert. evang._ , pp. - . [ : ] _einl. n.t._ p. . [ : ] in regard to one other point, i may say that, so far from being silent about the presence of a form of the logos doctrine in the apocalypse with which dr. lightfoot reproaches me, i repeatedly point out its existence, as, for instance, _s.r._ ii. pp. , , , &c., and i also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth gospel, but that it had already been applied to christianity in n.t. writings before the composition of that work. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, f. [_ibid._ p. f.] [ : ] dr. lightfoot will find the passage to which i refer, more especially p. , line , commencing with the words, "nur zwei neuere ausleger ahnen die einfache wahrheit." [ : ] _s.r._ f. [ : ] _works_, ed. pitman, x. f.; _horae et talm._ p. . [ : ] _chron. synopse d. vier. evv._ p. , anm. . [ : ] _bibl. comm., das. ev. n. joh._, umgearb. ebrard ii. , p. f. [ : ] _kurzgef. ex. handbuch n.t._ i. , p. . [ : ] _einl. n.t._ ii. f. hug more strictly applies the name to the sepulchre where the bones of joseph were laid (josh. xxiv. ). [ : ] _bibelwerk_, iv. . [ : ] _die zeugnisse_, p. . [ : ] _comm. sur l'ev. de st. jean_, i. p. f. [ : ] _einl. n.t._ p. . [ : ] _zeitschr. gesammt. luth. theol. u. kirche_, , p. ff. [ : ] _die joh. schriften_, i. p. , anm. ; _jahrb. bibl. wiss._ viii. p. f.; cf. _gesch. v. isr._ v. p. , anm. . [ : ] _das ev. joh._ p. . [ : ] _comm. ev. n. joh._ p. f. [ : ] _comm. ev. des joh._ i. p. f. [ : ] _jahrb. bibl. wiss._ viii. p. f. [ : ] _die joh. schr._ i. p. , anm. . [ : ] _authorship and hist. char. of fourth gospel_, , p. . [ : ] mr. sanday adds in a note here: "this may perhaps be called the current explanation of the name. it is accepted as well by those who deny the genuineness of the gospel as by those who maintain it. cf. keim, i. . but there is much to be said for the identification with el askar, &c." _authorship and hist. char. of fourth gospel_, p. , note . [ : ] _life of christ_, i. p. , note . [ : ] _la géographie du tulmud_, p. . [ : ] smith's _dictionary of the bible_, iii. p. f. [ : ] _bampton lect._ , nd edit. p. . [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. ff. [ : ] _contemporary review_, p. [_ibid._ p. f.] [ : ] _three essays on religion_, p. f. [ : ] _three essays on religion_, p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. . [ : ] this appeared as the preface to the th edition. [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. ff. (_ibid._ p. ff.) [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._ p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] i regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_s.r._ i. p. ) should have misled, and given dr. lightfoot much trouble. i used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the epistle of peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in polycarp. i trust that in this edition i have made my meaning clear. [ : ] cf. _h.e._ iii. , , , , , &c. &c. [ : ] _ibid._ ii. , vi. . [ : ] _ibid._ v. . [ : ] _ibid._ vi. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] by a slip of the pen dr. lightfoot refers to irenaeus, _adv. haer._ iii. , . it should be ii. , . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _h.e._ iii, . [ : ] _h.e._ ii. . [ : ] _ibid._ iii. . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ , . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ iv. . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ iv. . [ : ] _h.e._ ii. . [ : ] _ibid._ vii. . [ : ] _h.e._ iii. . [ : ] _ibid._ , . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] i am much obliged to dr. lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words "and the apocalypse" (_s.r._ i. p. ). this was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. [ : ] _h.e._ iii. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. ff. [_ibid._ p. ff.] [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. f. i have introduced numbers for facility of reference. [ : ] dr. lightfoot says in this volume: "the reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. , n. ). not so at all. "a slip of the pen" is a very different thing. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ueber d. urspr. u.s.w. des christennamens_, p. , anm. . [ : ] _zeitschr. wiss. theol._ , p. , anm. . i should have added that the priority which lipsius still maintains is that of the text, as dr. lightfoot points out in his _apostolic fathers_ (part ii. vol. i. , p. , n. ), and not of absolute origin; but this appears clearly enough in the quotations i have made. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. f. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p, f.] [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. . in a note dr. lightfoot states that my references to lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the curetonian epistles. certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages further on, i refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] calvin's expressions are: "nihil naeniis illis, quae sub ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_inst. chr. rel._ i. , § ). [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. . [ : ] _op. theolog._ , , p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. dr. lightfoot refers to pearson's _vindiciae ignat._ p. (ed. churton). [ : ] _exam. concilii tridentim_, , i. p. (misprinted ). [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _critici sacri_, lib. ii cap. ; _op. theolog._ , ii. p. . [ : ] _vind. ignat._ , p. f.; jacobson, _patr. apost._ i. p. xxxviii. [ : ] _op de theolog. dogmat., de eccles. hierarch._ v. § , edit. venetiis, , vol. vii. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. f. [_ibid._ p. f.] [ : ] _die kirche im ap. zeit._ p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. f. [_ibid._ p. .] [ : ] _k.g._ , . p. , anm. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _einl. n.t._ pp. f., . [ : ] _contemporary review_, january , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _theolog. quartalschrift_, , p. ff. [ : ] _hippolytus and his age_, , i. p. , note, iv. p. vi ff. [ : ] _gesch. d. v. isr._ vii. p. , anm. . [ : ] _patr. apost. proleg._ , p. xxx. [ : ] _patr. apost._ ed. th, . in a review of denzinger's work in the _theolog. quartalschrift_, , p. ff., hefele devotes eight lines to the armenian version (p. f.) [ : ] _hippolytus_, , i. p. , note. cf. iv. p. vi ff. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. f.] dr. lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "the roman epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the latin version, where doubtless it stood also in the greek, before the ms. of this latter was mutilated. otherwise the vossian epistles come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious epistles in the greek and latin mss. in the armenian all the vossian epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious epistles follow. see zahn, _ignatius von antiochien_, p. ." [ : ] note to horne's _int. to the holy scriptures_, th ed. , iv. p. , note . the italics are in the original. [ : ] _the ancient syrian version_, &c. , p. xxiv f. [ : ] _corpus ignat._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. ii. [ : ] dressel, _patr. ap._ p. lvi. [ : ] cureton, _corp. ign._ p. iii. [ : ] dressel, _patr. ap._ p. lvii f. [ : ] cureton, _corp. ignat._ p. vii f. [ : ] _ibid._ p. xi; dressel, _patr. ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; jacobson, _patr. ap._ i. p. lxxiii; vossius, _ep. gen. s. ign. mart._, amstel. . [ : ] dressel, _patr. ap._ p. lxi. [ : ] "a few words on 'supernatural religion,'" pref. to _hist. of the canon_, th ed. , p. xix. [ : ] "a few words on 's.r.,'" preface to _hist. of canon_, th ed. p. xix f. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. . [ : ] _on the canon_, preface, th ed. p. xx. [ : ] these consist only of an additional page of baur's work first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note, but accidentally left out of note . [ : ] i take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call attention to the assertion opposed to what i find in the note. [ : ] it is the same work, i believe, subsequently published in an extended form. the work i quote is entitled _kirchengeschichte der ersten sechs jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete auflage, , and is part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth century. [ : ] i do not know why dr. westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, but i presume it is taken from note , where the reference is given to 'p. ff.' this shows how completely he has failed to see the different object of the two notes. [ : ] _on the canon_, pref. th ed. p. xxi f. [ : ] p. . [ : ] _on the canon_, preface, th ed. p. xxiv. dr. westcott adds, in a note, "it may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connection with ignatius, i do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of zahn." i might reply to this that my ms. had left my hands before zahn's work had reached england, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary. [ : ] _on the canon_, preface, th ed. p xxv. [ : ] ruinart, _acta mart._ p. ff.; cf. baronius, _mart. rom._ , p. . [ : ] cf. lardner, _credibility_, &c., _works_, iii. p. . [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._ p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] there are grave reasons for considering it altogether inauthentic. cf. cotterill, _peregrinus proteus_, . [ : ] _de morte peregr._ . [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _gesch. chr. kirche_, i. p. f. [ : ] see, for instance, denzinger, _ueber die aechtheit d. bish. textes d. ignat. briefe_, , p. ff.; zahn, _ignatius v. ant._, , p. ff. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. f. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. , note . [ : ] dean milman says: "trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the christians." in a note he adds: "excepting of ignatius, probably of simeon of jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of trajan."--_hist. of christianity_, , ii. p. . [ : ] _k.g._ , i. p. . [ : ] _ibid._ i. p. , anm. [ : ] _hist. of christianity_, ii. p. f. [ : ] p. (ed. bonn). _contemporary review_, february , p. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._ p. f. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ibid._ p. [_ibid._ p. f.]. [ : ] _contemporary review_, february , p. f. [_ibid._ p. ]. [ : ] _ignatius v. ant._ p. , anm. . [ : ] i need not refer to the statement of nicephorus that these relics were first brought from rome to constantinople and afterwards translated to antioch. [ : ] ruinart, _acta mart._ pp. , . [ : ] _ignatius v. ant._ p, . [ : ] ruinart, _acta mart._ p. . baronius makes the anniversary of the martyrdom st february, and that of the translation th december. (_mart. rom._ pp. , ff.) [ : ] _ignatius v. ant._ p. , p. , anm. . [ : ] there is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to ignatius was in june. the mere allusion, in a homily delivered in honour of ignatius, that "recently" the feast of st. pelagia (in the latin calendar th june) had been celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is nothing else to establish it. [ : ] _st. paul's ep. to the philippians_, rd ed. , p. , note. cf. _contemporary review_, february , p. f. (_ibid._ p. ) [ : ] complete ed. i. p. f. all the references which i give in these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition. [ : ] i. p. ff. [ : ] [pg transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"] [ : ] this rendering is quoted from dr. lightfoot's _essays_, p. . [ : ] _essays_, p. f. [ : ] _essays_, p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _essays_, p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] vol. i. p. f. [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. f. [ : ] i. p. f. [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] i. ff. [ : ] note. [ : ] note. [ : ] _clem. rom._ § , § ; ibid. f. [ : ] i. p. f. [ : ] i. p. ff. i have italicised a few phrases. [ : ] _s.r._ i. ff. see further illustrations here. [ : ] _s.r._ i. p. f. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. , n. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ ii. p. f. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. . [ : ] in discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to melito, dr. lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _supernatural religion_ the following words: "they have, in fact, no attestation whatever except that of the syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, is worthless." the passage appeared thus in the _contemporary review_, and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. i presume that the passage which dr. lightfoot intends to quote is: "they have no attestation whatever, except that of the syriac translator, who is unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_s.r._ ii. p. ). if dr. lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable to those who have none. [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. ff. [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. ff., iii. ff. [ : ] _ibid._ . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. . [ : ] _s.r._ ii. p. f. [ : ] _s.r._ iii. p. [ : ] _ibid._ p. f. [ : ] _ibid._, p. . [ : ] ii. pp. ff., ff. [ : ] euseb. _h.e._ iv. . (_ibid._ p. f.) [ : ] i need not quote the references which dr. lightfoot gives in a note. [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _unters. n.t. kanons_, , p. f. [ : ] _on the canon_, , p. , n. . cf. , p. , n. . [ : ] _the diatessaron of tatian_, , p. xiv. [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] dr. lightfoot's rendering, p, . assem. _bibl. orient._ ii. p. sq. [ : ] _ibid._ p. f. [ : ] _the diatessaron of tatian_, p. xxx. [ : ] euseb. _op._ iv. p. (ed. migne.) the translation is by dr. lightfoot (_l.c._ p. , n. ). [ : ] zahn, _tatian's diatessaron_, , p. f. [ : ] _hist. chr. lit. and doctr._ iii. p. . [ : ] moesinger, _evang. concor. expositio_, , p. x f. [ : ] _ibid._ p. xi. [ : ] zahn, _l.c._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . [ : ] _ibid._ p. . the italics are mine. [ : ] hemphill, _the diatessaron of tatian_, p. xxiv. [ : ] i have already referred to this document further back, p. . [ : ] lightfoot, _apostolic fathers_, part ii. , p. ff. [ : ] by recent returns the number of the professors of different religions is estimated as follows: parsees , sikhs , , jews , , , being about ½ per cent. of the whole. greek catholics , , " " " roman catholics , , " " " other christians , , " " " hindus , , " " " muhammedans , , " ½ " " buddhists , , " " " not included in the above , , " " " ----------- , , , we have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an excellent little work recently published by the society for the propagation of christian knowledge--_buddhism_, by t.w. rhys davids, p. . index. acts of the apostles, evidence for, f., addai, doctrine of, ammonius, _diatessaron_ of, anger, antioch, earthquake at, in a.d. , f. aphthonius; see elias of salamia apocalypse, allusion to paul in, , n. ; language of, ff. apollinaris, claudius; date, ; evidence for gospels, aristion, ascension, evidence for, aubertin, , aucher, baronius, n. bar-salibi, dionysius, f. basnage, , baumgarten-crusius, , baur, does not allude to armenian version of ignatian epistles, ; date of martyrdom of ignatius, f.; place of his martyrdom, ff.; on peregrinus proteus, beausobre, , bleek, , , , , , , , , blondel, , bochart, , böhringer, , , , bunsen, , , , calvin, campianus, casaubon, , celsus, origen on, ff., centuriators, magdeburg, chemnitz, , , christianity, claim to be divine revelation, not original, f.; history and achievements opposed to this claim, f.; census of religions, n. ; transformation of, f. chrysostom, , , f. ciasca, alleged arabic version of tatian's _diatessaron_, , f. clement of alexandria, on basilides, f. cleophas, cook, , criticism, attitude towards, cureton, , , , ff., , f. curetonian version of ignatian epistles, ff., ff., ff., f. dallaeus, davidson, dr., on passage of irenaeus, ; date of martyrdom of ignatius, ; place of the martyrdom, delitzsch, , , denzinger, , , n. , n. diatessaron of ammonius, ff., ff. diatessaron of elias of salamia, ff. diatessaron of tatian, ff.; alleged armenian version of ephraem's commentary on it, f.; latin translation by aucher and moesinger, f.; arabic version of, translated by ciasca, f.; eusebius on it, f.; did eusebius directly know it? f.; bar-salibi on it, f.; theodoret suppresses it, f.; the genealogies of jesus said to be excised, f.; not all suppressed in armenian and arabic works, ; called 'gospel according to the hebrews,' ; epiphanius had not seen it, ; we could not identify it, ; arabic version of ciasca, f.; said to be translated from syriac, ; its date, ; ascribed in notes to tatian, ; original language of tatian's _diatessaron_, f.; gospel texts in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, f.; name of tatian not on original work, ; could it be identified? ff.; case of victor of capua, ff.; was he mistaken? f.; dr. wace says: no, ; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, dionysius of corinth, doctrine of addai, donaldson, dr., on epistle of polycarp, ; on tatian's _diatessaron_, dorner, dressel, ebrard, elias of salamia, his _diatessaron_, f.; he finds fault with canons of eusebius, ephraem syrus, his commentary on tatian's _diatessaron_, f.; date, ; alleged armenian version of his commentary, ; date of the ms., ; translated from syriac, ; evidence, f.; tatian's name not mentioned, ; value as evidence if genuine, epiphanius, eusebius, on papias, ; silence of, f.; my only inference from silence of, f.; procedure of, f.; his references to hegesippus, ff.; his references to john, ff.; on claudius apollinaris, ; on polycrates of ephesus, ; on tatian's _diatessaron_, f.; on _diatessaron_ of ammonius, f.; his epistle to carpianus, f., ewald, , , , , , farrar, dr., francke, gfrörer, , glaucias, , , , gobarus, stephanus, godet, gospel, the fourth, contrast with synoptics, f., n. ; hebraic character of its language, ff.; eusebius regarding it, , , f., ff.; evidence to it of martyrdom of polycarp, ; alleged evidence of claudius apollinaris, ; alleged evidence of polycrates ; supposed reference to it in epistle of vienne and lyons, ; tatian's _diatessaron_ said to begin with it, f.; insufficiency of evidence for it, ff.; its contents cannot be reconciled with synoptics, f. gospels, justin's use of, f.; evidence of alleged quotations, f.; object in examining evidence for, ff., ff.; numerous gospels circulating in early church, f.; anonymous quotations not necessarily from canonical, ff.; illustrations of this, ff.; evidence of martyrdom of polycarp, ; evidence of melito of sardis, f.; evidence of claudius apollinaris, ; evidence of epistle of vienne and lyons, ff.; principles on which evidence is examined, ; insufficiency of evidence for, ff. greet, hofstede de, , n. grove, guericke, , f., hadrian, hagenbach, , harless, hase, hebrews, gospel according to the, f., , hefele, hegesippus, his attitude to paul, ; references to him by eusebius, ff.; on simeon, hemphill, professor, did eusebius directly know tatian's _diatessaron_? f.; on arabic _diatessaron_, ; it takes matthew as basis, ; its substantial identity with victor's _diatessaron_, hengstenberg, hilgenfeld, on passage of irenaeus, f.; on ignatian epistles, , ; place and date of martyrdom of ignatius, ff.; on papias and matthew's hebrew "oracles," ; protevangelium jacobi, ; eusebius on tatian's _diatessaron_, f. hippolytus, f. holtzmann, , hug, humfrey, ignatius, epistle of polycarp regarding him, ff.; date and place of his martyrdom, , ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, ff.; his treatment during it, f.; compared with paul's journey, f.; compared with case of peregrinus, ff.; reasons opposed to martyr-journey to rome, and for martyrdom in antioch, ff.; remains of ignatius, ff.; martyrologies, f. ignatian epistles, dr. lightfoot on, ff.; critics on priority of syriac version, ff., long recension, ff.; vossian epistles, ff.; version of ussher, ; armenian version, ff.; eusebian epistles, ff.; their order in mss., ff.; their value as evidence, f. irenaeus, ff. jacobson, jerome, f. john, references of eusebius, ff.; papias and presbyters on, f.; double use of name, f. justin martyr, his quotations, ff. keim, kestner, , kirchhofer, lange, lardner, , lechler, f. lightfoot, , lightfoot, dr., objectionable style of criticism, f., , f., n. , f., n. , , , f., n. , f., , f., , f., f., ff., ff.; ff., ; on a passage of irenaeus, ff.; discussion of date of celsus, ff.; dr. westcott on basilides, ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, ff.; on epistle of polycarp, f., object of papias' work, ; on hegesippus and apostle paul, f.; on justin martyr's quotations, ff.; on duration of ministry of jesus, f.; on hebraic character of language of the fourth gospel, ff.; identification of sychar, ff.; on argument of s.r., ff.; on silence of eusebius, ff.; the intention of eusebius, f.; procedure of eusebius, f.; silence of eusebius as evidence for fourth gospel, f.; on ignatian epistles, ff.; on view of lipsius, f.; misstatements regarding references in s.r., ff.; differentiation of ignatian epistles, ff.; their position in mss., ff.; on martyr-journey and treatment of ignatius, f.; compared with apostle paul's, f.; compared with case of peregrinus proteus, ff.; on john malalas, ff.; on polycarp of smyrna, f.; date of his epistle, ; does not examine alleged quotations of gospels, ; on papias of hierapolis, ff.; papias on mark, f.; papias on matthew, ff.; on accuracy of papias, ff.; translation of hebrew oracles of matthew, f.; on gospel according to the hebrews, f.; on nature of oracles of matthew, ff.; can oracles include narrative? f.; his misapprehension of argument of s.r., ff.; on martyrdom of polycarp, ; on melito of sardis, f.; erroneous quotation from s.r., , n. ; on claudius apollinaris, f.; on polycrates of ephesus, ; on epistle of vienne and lyons, ff.; on the "testimony of zacharias," ff.; alleged reference to acts, f.; alleged reference to fourth gospel, ; tatian's diatessaron, f.; on eusebius's mention of it, f.; did he directly know it? ; on doctrine of addai, ; it mentions tatian's diatessaron, ; dionysius bar-salibi on tatian's _diatessaron_, f.; on _diatessaron_ of ammonius, ; quite different from tatian's work, f.; similarity to arabic version asserted by hemphill, ; case of victor of capua, f.; victor must have been mistaken, f.; victor not mistaken after all, ; on letter of the smyrnaens, ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, f.; practically justifies procedure of "supernatural religion," lipsius, on ignatian epistles, f., , , ; on martyrdom of polycarp, logia, meaning of, in n.t., ff. logos doctrine in apocalypse, n. lucian, , f. luke, gospel according to, supposed reference to it in epistle of vienne and lyons, f.; its use in _diatessaron_, , luthardt, on passage of irenaeus, ; on basilides, ; on language of fourth gospel and apocalypse, ff. magdeburg centuriators, malalas, john, on martyrdom of ignatius, ff. marcus aurelius, f. mark, presbyters and papias on, f.; not eye-witness but interpreter of peter, f.; value of his gospel as evidence, f.; use in _diatessaron_, matthew, presbyters and papias on, f., ff.; wrote oracles in hebrew, ff.; when translated, ff.; use in _diatessaron_ of ammonius, ; also in that of tatian, f. matthias, , mayerhoff, , melito of sardis, f. merx, , meyer, on passage of irenaeus, , mill, on miracles, ff. milman, , , , n. , f. moesinger, ephraem's commentary, f., mozley, on belief, f. neander, , f., f. neubauer, , nicephorus, n. olshausen, , "oracles," meaning of, ff. origen, on celsus, f. papias of hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, ff.; object of his work, ; references of eusebius to him, ff.; words of the presbyters, f.; double reference to "john," f.; he had nothing to tell of fourth gospel, ff.; on mark's gospel, ff.; on matthew's hebrew oracles, f.; value of his evidence for the gospels, f. parker, , paul, apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of ignatius, f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, ; his testimony for resurrection and ascension, f. pearson, peregrinus proteus, ff. perpetua, saturus and, petau, , petermann, ff. phillips, polycarp of smyrna, f.; date of martyrdom, polycarp, martyrdom of, , ff.; dr. lightfoot's short way with the miraculous elements, f. polycrates of ephesus, date, ; evidence for fourth gospel, pressensé, de, protevangelium jacobi, quadratus, statius, date of proconsulship, "religion, supernatural," argument of, ff., ff., ff.; canons of criticism, ff.; the "testimony of zacharias," epistle of vienne and lyons, ff.; was eusebius directly acquainted with tatian's _diatessaron_? f.; argument of s.r. practically justified by dr. lightfoot, ff.; conclusions of, ff.; evidence of divine revelation which is necessary, ; miracles as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, f.; miraculous evidence not original, f., stream of miraculous pretension, ; true character of miracles betrayed, f.; origin of belief in supernatural interference, ; assumptions to justify miracles, f.; an infinite personal god, f.; divine design of revelation, ; miracles antecedently incredible, f.; evidence for the christian miracles, f.; principles upon which evidence examined, ; evidence for gospels, f.; evidence for acts, ; the remaining books of new testament, f.; evidence of paul, ; evidence for resurrection and ascension, f.; results tested by general considerations, ff.; claim of christianity to be divinely revealed not original, f.; history and achievements of christianity opposed to it, f.; census of religions, n. ; how far the great teacher was misunderstood, f.; transformation of christianity, f.; alleged objections to disturbing belief, f.; objections not valid, f.; argument that divine revelation is necessary to man, f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology to be mere human inventions, f. resurrection, evidence for, f. reuss, riggenbach, on passage of irenaeus, ; on sychar, ritschl, , rivet, , , routh, on passage of irenaeus, ruinart, anniversary of ignatius, rumpf, sanday, saumaise, , schleimann, f. scholten, n. , , f., f., schroeckh, , schürer, shechem, ff. simeon, , f. smyrnaens, letter of, ff.; dr. lightfoot as a sceptical critic, f. socinus, stephen, f. sychar, ff. synoptics, contrasted with fourth gospel, f. tatian's _diatessaron_: see diatessaron theodoret, the ignatian epistles, thiersch, , tholuck, tischendorf, on passage of irenaeus, ff.; passage of celsus, ff.; does not notice armenian version of ignatian epistles, ; "testimony of zacharias," in epistle of vienne and lyons, ; it is a reference to the protevangelium jacobi, trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of ignatius, ff., ff. tregelles, , f. uhlhorn, , ussher, vienne and lyons, epistle of, ff.; date, ; the "testimony of zacharias," f.; alleged quotations of acts, ff.; value of evidence, ; dr. lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, volkmar, on celsus, ff.; on ignatian epistles, ; does not notice armenian version, ; date of martyrdom of ignatius, f.; place of martyrdom, ff. vossian epistles of ignatius, f. wace, dr., waddington, weiss, , , , weissmann, f. westcott, dr., criticisms on, f.; on papias, ; on basilides, ff.; on justin martyr's quotations, ff.; on "supernatural religion," f.; misstatements regarding notes, ff.; was eusebius directly acquainted with tatian's _diatessaron_? wette, de, , n. , wieseler, , wotton, , zacharias, the testimony of, epistle of vienne and lyons, ff. zahn, on passage of irenaeus, ; on ignatian epistles, , , n. , ; on john malalas, , date of martyrdom of ignatius, ; did eusebius directly know tatian's _diatessaron_? ; passages regarding descent of jesus from david not all excised from alleged armenian version, zeller, on passage of irenaeus, the life and legends of saint francis of assisi translated from the french of father candide chalippe, o.f.m. revised and re-edited by father hilarion duerk, o.f.m. imprimatur father samuel macke o.f.m. _min. prov._ st. louis september , nihil obstat arthur j. scanlan, s.t.d. _censur librarum_ imprimatur john cardinal farley _new york_ this jubilee edition of the life and legends of st. francis of assisi is respectfully dedicated to all members of the third order in the city of cleveland and vicinity, above all, to the nobel patrons and zealous workers of our tertiary branches. introductory note the life and legends of st. francis of assisi by father candide chalippe, o.f.m., need no apology. the work was first published at paris in . it is not only well written and reliable withal, but also instructive, elevating and inspiring. the facts and legends mentioned are drawn from the oldest and most reliable sources. the abundance of incidents and anecdotes not to be found elsewhere make the volume eminently interesting, while the reflexions and applications which the author now and then interweaves with the narrative are so replete with practical hints on spiritual life, that they will undoubtedly produce the best spiritual results in the reader. the style though simple, at times graphic, is very pleasing; the narrative flows on with equal ease and freedom. in a priest from the oratory of st. philip neri made a translation into english from what was then the latest french edition. this french edition came from the press in . with the english translation the original work appeared in an abridged form. the original work is divided into six books, the english translation contains but half of these, so rearranged for the sake of clearness that they form five books. most elucidations of the original work regarding characteristics of st. francis, events and dates that are doubtful, are omitted, likewise most of the writings of st. francis. the former were and still are undergoing changes, owing to new historical researches and discoveries made by students of franciscan sources, while the latter were but lately again newly translated into english and edited as completely as possible with many critical notes and references of great value by the scholarly father paschal robinson, o.f.m.--the writings of st. francis of assisi by father paschal robinson, o.f.m. the dolphin press, . the marvellous progress the third order of st. francis is making in this country causes the story of the life of st. francis that is herewith presented to the public in a newly revised edition to be especially welcome. for all tertiaries know that mere devotion to st. francis is of itself not sufficient to acquire the spirit of their seraphic father; all are aware that membership in the third order does not necessarily argue the possession of this spirit--and yet, every real tertiary desires nothing more than to acquire the poor, humble, loving spirit of st. francis. this spirit can scarcely be acquired, unless the life of st. francis be well known, meditated upon and imitated as far as practicable. the life and legends of st. francis of assisi by father candide chalippe, o.f.m., is peculiarly adapted to help tertiaries to perform this task; the spirit of st. francis breathes in every page. not once, but several times may tertiaries read this book to great advantage. with every reading new items of interest will be discovered, new lessons will present themselves to be learnt, new inspirations will be imparted to the soul from above. the more this book is read, the more it will be loved; the more it is studied, the more it will be admired. for tertiaries a book of this kind is a necessity; it is as necessary for them as a text-book is for a scholar. may this wonderful work spread in the future even more rapidly than before, may it receive the hearty welcome it deserves among the innumerable tertiaries and clients of st. francis of assisi and be to them a sure guide to god's abundant graces in this world and to life everlasting in the next. preface by the author wherein the prejudices of certain persons against miracles which are recorded in the lives of the saints are shown to be both unreasonable and dangerous, and that the miracles attributed to saint francis are very well authenticated. a very common failing amongst men is to adopt one extreme in the endeavor to avoid another, and sometimes not to perceive that the extreme into which they fall is greater than that which they had sought to flee from. to insure themselves against weak incredulity, some have imbibed such prejudice against the miracles in the lives of the saints, that they cannot endure to hear of them; the very ideas of miracles, revelations, ecstasies, visions, apparitions, are hateful and disgusting to them; all that is said on these subjects they look upon as fabulous and incredible; they call in question the most undeniable evidence, or attribute these wonders to natural and unknown causes. the wonders which are recorded in the life of st, francis, afford an opportunity of grappling with these prejudices. in the first place, no man using his right reason will reject the wonders recorded in the lives of the saints, because of their impossibility. miracles are extraordinary events, which break through the laws of nature, and exceed the force of all natural causes; it is only necessary to make use of our reason to be aware that god, whose power is infinite, having freely established these laws, may, whenever he thinks fit, break through them himself by the ministry of his creatures, whom he makes use of as he pleases; that these suspensions may enter into the external designs of his wisdom and providence, and that they occur by successive acts, without there having been any change in him, because it is an act of his will which causes them, as it does every other thing. now this proves that miracles are possible, and that there is no impossibility in the wonders recorded in the lives of the saints. in the second place, these wonders ought not to cause an incredulous surprise in any sensible person who pays due attention to the wonders of nature. "man," says st. augustine, "sees extraordinary things happen, and he admires them, while he himself, the admirer, is a great wonder, and a much greater miracle than any things which are done by the intervention of man. there is nothing more marvellous done in the world, which is not less wonderful than the world itself. all nature is full of what is miraculous; we seem unconscious of it, because we see those things daily, and because this daily repetition lowers them in our eyes. and this is one reason why god has reserved to himself other things out of the common course of nature, on which he shows his power from time to time, in order that their novelty may strike us; but when we consider attentively, and with reflection, the miracles we constantly see, we find that they are far greater than others, however surprising and uncommon these may be." the holy doctor admits that the prodigies which are out of the common course of nature, and which are properly called miracles, are to be viewed with astonishment, since they are works of god, worthy of admiration; he only requires that the surprise they cause shall be qualified by a consideration of the wonders of nature, to which he likewise gives the name of miracles, in a more extended sense: on the same principle, and _a fortiori_, what there is surprising in them should not make them appear to us incredible. an enlightened mind does not believe in miracles which are communicated to him, unless due proof of them is adduced; but it is not because what is wonderful in them renders him incredulous, because he sees more marvellous things in the universe and in himself. if men who apply themselves to the study of nature, are pertinacious in refusing to believe in the miracles of the saints, it is because they do not make use of the light they have received, and do not reason deductively; they have only sought to gratify their curiosity, or to gain credit for their discoveries; and do not some of them lose themselves in their speculations, and become impious, even so as to recognize no other god than nature itself? in the third place, faith in the great mysteries of religion must incline us to believe in the wonders we read in the lives of the saints. are we, then, not called upon to say to those whose prejudices we oppose: "as you belong to the society of the faithful, you not only believe that three persons make only one god; that the son of god was made man; that the dead shall rise again; but also, that jesus christ becomes every day present on our altars, under the species of bread and wine, at the words of consecration; and you believe all the other astonishing wonders that are proposed to you in our holy religion: why, then, do you find such repugnance in believing those of the lives of the saints, which are far inferior to the former"? it is useless to say in answer, that these last are only based on human testimony, which we are not obliged to receive; that the mysteries are propounded to us by divine authority, to which we are bound to submit; for this is not the question before us. we only compare one wonder with another, and we maintain that the belief in the one should facilitate the belief in the other. in fact, if we believe with a firm and unshaken faith what god, in his goodness, has been pleased to effect for the salvation of all men, and what he continues daily to effect in the eucharist; may we not easily convince ourselves that he may have given extraordinary marks of his affection for his most faithful servants? in the fourth place, similar wonders to those which are found in the lives of the saints are also found in the holy scriptures. raptures, ecstasies, frequent visions and apparitions, continual revelations, an infinity of miracles, miraculous fasts of forty days, are things recorded in the old and new testaments. we believe all these wonderful circumstances, and we are obliged to believe them, although they far surpass our understanding; on what, then, shall we rely for maintaining that the wonders recorded in the lives of the saints are improbable, and that we may reasonably call them in question? reason, on the contrary, marks them as so much the more probable and worthy of credit, as we know and believe similar ones which we may not doubt of. christians should be accustomed to what is marvellous, and require nothing but proofs for the most unusual prodigies. in the fifth place, the promise which jesus made that the power of working miracles should be given to true believers, gives authority to the belief in miracles in the lives of the saints. "amen, amen, i say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that i do he shall do also, and greater than these shall he do; because i go to the father. and whatsoever you ask the father in my name, that will i do." "and these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." our saviour, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers, has promised the gift of miracles, not to each one of the faithful in particular, but to the church in general; and his promise is for all times, when the good of religion requires its accomplishment. heretics pretend that it only related to the days of the apostles, and that miracles were only required for the establishment of the faith. what right have they to limit the words of the son of god? do they imagine that they understand the scriptures better than the holy doctors? how will they prove that since the time of the apostles there have been no combinations of circumstances in which the good of religion shall have required that miracles should be performed? they were required for the infidels, to whom the gospel has been preached in different centuries, as well as for the greek and roman idolaters, to whom it was first announced. the church has required them to silence the heretics who have successively endeavored to impugn her dogmas, and to strengthen the faith of her own children. they have been always useful for manifesting the eminence of virtue, for the glory of god, for the conversion of sinners, for reanimating piety, for nourishing and strengthening the hopes of the good things of another life. we are, therefore, justified in saying that the promise of jesus christ is for all times, in certain occasions, and that the belief in the miracles in the lives of the saints is authorized thereby. in the sixth place, that there have been miracles in the lives of the saints are facts, the proofs of which are unquestionable. the acts of the martyrs, which have always been read in the church, and the genuineness of which has been admitted by the most talented critics, contain recitals of the most wonderful events: the confessors of the faith instantaneously cured, after having undergone the most cruel tortures; wild beasts tamed and crouching at their feet; lights and celestial voices, apparitions of jesus christ and his angels, and many other wonderful circumstances. in the first six centuries there are scarcely any ecclesiastical writers and holy fathers who do not record miracles worked by the servants of god, and by their relics; and they speak of them as of things which they have either seen with their own eyes, or were of public notoriety. saint justin martyr, in the second century, speaking of the power of jesus christ over the demons, in his apology, addressed to the emperors marcus aurelius and lucius verus, and to the roman senate, says: "you have proofs of what passes before your eyes, and in your city, and in all the rest of the world; for you know that many of those possessed, not having been able to be delivered by your exorcists, enchanters, and magicians, have been so by the christians who have exorcised them in the name of jesus christ, who was crucified under pontius pilate." saint ireneus assures us that in the same century some true disciples of jesus christ had received supernatural gifts, which they made use of advantageously for other men: "some," says he, "drive away devils; and this is certain, that often those who have been delivered embrace the faith, and join the church. to others it is given to know the future, and to have prophetic visions. others cure the sick by the imposition of hands, and restore them to perfect health. very often, even in every place, and for some requisite cause, the brethren solicit, by fasting and fervent prayers, the resurrection of a dead person, and obtain it; these dead, thus revived, have lived with us for several years afterwards. what shall i say further? it is not possible to enumerate the extraordinary gifts which the church receives from god, and what she operates in every part of the world, in favor of the nations, in the name of jesus christ crucified." "we can," says origen, writing against celsus, "show an immense multitude of greeks and barbarians who believe in our lord jesus christ; there are some who prove their faith by the power of working miracles. they cure the sick by invoking their god, the creator and the sovereign lord of all things; and the name of jesus christ, our saviour, of whose gospel they recite a part. we ourselves have seen several sick persons delivered from the most formidable maladies, and the cured are too numerous to be counted." tertullian, in his apology, and in another work, records plainly the miraculous fall of rain which was obtained from heaven by the prayers of the christian soldiers, which saved the army of the emperor marcus aurelius, which was reduced to the last extremity. he proves the truth of this fact by the very letter of the emperor. we have also authentic proofs of this event in the authors and records of paganism itself. tertullian, likewise, tells us that the pagans received extraordinary graces by means of the christians, some of which he quotes, and he adds: "how many persons of distinction, without mentioning other people, have been thus delivered from the devil, and cured of their evils!" st. cyprian upbraided an idolater in the following terms, while refuting him: "the gods whom you adore we exorcise in the name of the true god, and they are compelled to leave the bodies which they possessed. oh, if you chose to see and hear them, when suffering under the power of our words, as if they were spiritual scourges, and feeling the secret operation of the divine mastery! they howl terrifically, entreat of us to spare them, declare, in presence of their adorers, whence they came, and confess a future judgment. come and be convinced of the truth of what we say; to be at least moved. those whom you adore, fear us; those to whom you pray, entreat of us to spare them; those whom you revere as sovereigns, are as prisoners in our hands, and tremble as so many slaves. we interrogate them, and in your presence they declare what they are; they cannot dissemble the impostures which they make use of to deceive you." such are the miracles which many of god's servants operated in the second and third centuries, and which cannot be called in question. how many different kinds are recorded in subsequent times by st. basil, and by st. gregory of nyssa, in the life of st. gregory thaumaturgus; by st. athanasius in the life of st. anthony; by sulpicius severus, in the life of st. martin; by st. chrysostom, st. jerome, st. ambrose, st. augustine, st. paulinus, in many parts of their works; by theodoret, in his religious history; by pope st. gregory, in his dialogues; by st. hilary of arles, st. ouen, and very many others worthy of credit! these saintly and learned bishops, avitus, metropolitan of vienne, stephen of lyons, eon of arles, conferring with the arians, in presence of gondebauld, king of the burgundians, after having proved the consubstantiality of the word, by the testimony of the scripture, and by powerful arguments, offered to give additional proof thereof by miracles, if the heretics would promise to acquiesce in consequence; and quoted the example of st. remigius, apostle of the french, who was then living, and setting up the faith on the ruins of idolatry by a multitude of prodigies. the miracles operated by means of relics are neither less well authenticated, nor less celebrated; they were known to the whole world. st. augustine was an eyewitness of them; being at milan when st. ambrose discovered, by means of a revelation, the spot where the bodies of ss. gervasius and protasius reposed. he saw a great many miracles performed in africa by the relics of st. stephen, of which he makes mention in his book of the city of god, written for the confutation of the most learned of the pagans, wherein he says that, to quote only those operated in the dioceses of calame and hippo, several books would not suffice. nicetius, bishop of treves, writing to clodosvinda, or glotinda, queen of the lombards, to exhort her to solicit the conversion of king alboin, her husband, advised her to make use of the visible miracles which were operated at the tomb of st martin, and by the invocation of st. germanus, st. hilary, st. lupus, st. remigius, and st. medardus. they were so evident, that the heretics dared not call them in question, and could not deprive them of their splendor. god made use of these for the conversion of kings, and of the entire nations. in all ages after the six first centuries, the prodigies of the lives of the saints are noticed by numerous authors of all countries, whose talents, learning, probity, holiness, and dignity, render them respectable to the most searching critics. they are supported by incontrovertible evidence, by juridical depositions, by authentic acts, and by splendid monuments which have been erected to their memory by bishops, princes, magistrates, cities and kingdoms to perpetuate the recollections of these splendid achievements. we find that the saints have made numerous predictions, which have been justified by the event; and that, either moved by the spirit of god, or compelled by obedience, they have admitted the supernatural operations which they felt in their souls. finally, the prodigies which are found in the lives of the saints have always been considered as indubitable facts amongst the faithful; the church recognizes them, and they form one of the objects of their piety and devotion; no one is placed in the catalogue of saints whose sanctity has not been attested from heaven, by means of miracles; and she takes such rigorous precautions, and carries their strictness so far, that, according to all human prudence, it is impossible she should be deceived. we now ask whether it can be permitted to think and to say that such facts are absolutely false, and should only be looked upon as fables unworthy of credence? in such case it would be necessary to abrogate the rule judiciously and universally received in the world, that facts which have nothing incredible in themselves are not to be controverted when duly proved; it would be also necessary to refuse credence to all that is related in sacred and profane history; to lay down as a maxim to believe nothing but what we see, and to refuse to receive the testimony of the honorable people with whom we live. now, this is what is requisite to prove and convince every man of good sense that the prejudice against the miracles of the lives of the saints is quite unreasonable; but this does not point out its quality sufficiently; it is senseless and ridiculous, it is rash, and, what is more, it is dangerous. whoever denies what the fathers of the church attest as having seen, or having been authentically informed of, must conclude that they were either very credulous, or deceived the people. to refuse to believe the marvels which have reached us by an uniform and universal tradition, is to call in question all tradition; to render all its channels suspicious, and to cause it to be looked upon as a questionable proposition. what can be thought of the saints, if the miraculous graces, which they certify that they have received from god, are to be treated as chimeras; if the accomplishment of what they have foretold, is to be attributed to chance? what even can be thought of their most heroic victims? what opinion will be formed of their acts? will they be deemed more trustworthy in other matters? when it is asserted that there have been no miracles since the days of the apostles, it must be said, by a necessary consequence, that the church, which grounds canonization on miracles, makes use of falsehood in that most solemn and religious act, and that the public worship which the church directs is uncertain. now this very much resembles heresy; for the great principles of religion teach us that on these occasions the church receives peculiar enlightenment from the holy ghost, by which she can neither be deceived herself, nor can she deceive others. these miracles, it is said, are not articles of faith, and the church does not oblige us to believe them. as if nothing was believed in the world but such things as are of faith; as if it was not dangerous obstinately to reject those things which are sanctioned by the authority of the holy fathers, by reason and by piety, by tradition and by the church, and which cannot be rejected without fatal consequences! this incredulity attacks, moreover, one of the proofs of the divinity of jesus christ, which the fathers adduced against the pagans. st. chrysostom having asserted, on the subject of the miracles of the martyr, st. babylas, that our saviour, on the night of his passion, had promised to those who should believe in him, the power of working these miracles, adds: "it had been antecedently seen that many had taken upon themselves the character of masters, who had disciples, and who boast of performing wonders; nevertheless, we do not hear of any who had ventured to promise their disciples the same power. the insolence of their impostures did not go so far, because they knew that no one would believe them; all the world being convinced that it is only given to god to make a similar promise, and to fulfil it." on this principle the holy doctor proves that jesus christ is god, since he has given to those who believe in him the power of working miracles, which his disciples actually did, and which his servants now do. st. augustine makes use of the same proofs, in his book of the city of god. thus the miracles of the saints have in all ages been adduced as proofs of the divinity of our saviour; and this is what those endeavor to do away with, who, without reflection, consider them as fables. another danger is, that they speak of these marvels according to their own prejudices. they openly say that they do not believe them, and that persons ought not to have the weakness to believe them; they speak contemptuously of the books in which they are recorded; they cannot endure that they should form part of panegyrics of the saints. they make use of impious derisions, and turn into ridicule the faithful who credit them, and they censure the conduct of the church which consecrates them. such discourse sanctions heresy and licentiousness; worldlings and the indevout applaud it, the tepid seem to consent to it, and the falsely devout approve it; it is a scandal to the weak, and a dishonor to religion. it is also to be feared that prejudices against what is wonderful in the lives of the saints may spread to other subjects, if we only judge from the principles which are the cause of them. for, in what do these principles consist? they are not grounded on reason or religion; they must, therefore, have a basis of incredulity for everything which they do not understand: the foolish vanity of being thought singular; ignorance, which boldly repudiates what it knows nothing of; keeping company with libertines; a conformity of feeling with heretics, and the spirit of the world, which is the enemy of all piety. such calamitous causes give room to fear the most fatal effects. in general, the liberty only to believe those things which we choose, on points in which religion is concerned, is very dangerous; it often makes a destructive progress, for its first attempts embolden it. persons are easily persuaded that all miraculous narratives are false, though the church guarantees the truth of many; and when this same church pronounces on dogmatical facts, declaring: such and such propositions to be heretical which are in such and such a book, and exacts an interior submission of heart and mind, do these doubters show more docility? do they not cloak their disobedience by a respectful silence, always ill kept and finally broken through by open rebellion? do we not see persons in the world speaking irreverently of relics, purgatory, indulgences, and even of the holy mysteries, after having treated contemptuously the marvels of the lives of the saints? certain critics admit these marvels, but have imbibed the idea that falsehood is so mixed up with the truth, that they cannot be separated but by using certain rules, which they take upon themselves to lay down. this prejudice is not less dangerous, nor less unreasonable than the other. because some inconsiderate writers, who cannot be too severely censured, have given scope to their imagination in certain legends, and have employed fiction for the embellishment of their narratives, the doubters pretend that the whole history of the saints is full of impostures; nevertheless, pure sources have been the basis of their authentic acts, in the works of the fathers, and in an infinity of authors well worthy of credit, and in the bulls of canonization. an asiatic priest, as related by st. jerome, who quotes tertullian, composed false acts of st. thecla through an ill-understood sentiment of devotion:--does it follow from that that the truth of many other acts which were there read, and which we still possess, is to be set aside? moreover, the church has remedied the evil; she has rejected the false prodigies; she has expunged from the legends the indiscreet additions; a new edition has been long since placed in the hands of the faithful, which only contains the well-authenticated and certain miracles. a learned man has demonstrated that the rules of these critics for the elucidation of these miracles are not judicious; that they are extravagant, and that it would be risking too much to follow them; that they are contradictory, and not in unison with each other; that it often happens that they reject or admit miracles against their own principles. if they find splendid ones, and many of them in the same legend, they hold them to be suppositions or altered, although, the oldest and most authentic documents contain similar ones; they reject them as false, without assigning any reason in proof of their having been falsified; they pretend that the authors who have recorded them were too credulous, though they received other articles on the testimony of these same authors. in order to believe them, they require perfect certainty, although they give credit to many circumstances in ecclesiastical and profane history on mere probabilities. one of them professes not to omit a single miracle which is vouched for by good authority, nevertheless, he suppresses many of the most considerable; and many of those which he feels compelled to bring forward, he does so in terms which mark doubtfulness, to say nothing more. thus, the ultra-critics while admitting the wonders of the lives of the saints, reduce them to nothing by rules, which they invent for separating truth from falsehood, as those who profess to believe an infallible authority in the church make that infallibility to depend on so many conditions, that they may always maintain that the church, dispersed or assembled, has never come to any decision in opposition to their errors. it is, they say, the love of truth which induces them to examine most scrupulously the miracles of the saints; nothing should be believed, or be proposed to belief, but what is true. but bossuet said of bad critics: "they are content, provided they can pass for more subtle observers than others, and they find themselves sharper, in not giving credit to so many wonders." the love of truth does not consist in denying its existence, where so many persons of first-rate genius have found it; it does not depend on rendering obscure the light it sheds, nor in giving to the public lives of saints accompanied by a dry, bitter, and licentious criticism, calculated to throw doubt on all that is extraordinary in them, and thereby to give scandal. the learned jesuits, the continuators of bollandus, show, by the precision of their researches, that they are sincere lovers of truth, but we do not see that they endeavor to diminish the number of miracles: "they have no idea of taking them for fictions; nothing astonishes them in the lives of the friends of god, provided it be well attested." father thomassen, of the oratory, in his treatise on the celebration of festivals, speaks of a miraculous event which occurred in the sixth century, and which is reported by bollandus, and he adds: "these sorts of miracles are by no means articles of faith, but nevertheless, they are not to be rejected by sage and considerate persons. upon reading the works of st. cyprian, st. augustine, st. ambrose, and st. jerome, and those of st. gregory of nyssa, of st. basil, and st. athanasius, we can have no doubt that these fathers had no difficulty in believing similar occurrences, similarly attested. st. augustine, indeed, has related several much more incredible; and it is greatly to be feared that to set one's self above the augustines, the jeromes, the gregories, and the most learned fathers of the church, must be the effect of a most dangerous pride." it is objected that the multitude is credulous; that it likes the marvellous, and should not be exposed to believe untruths. but credulity is far less dangerous than incredulity; the one admits of cure much easier than the other; the former, in proper limits, may be very useful, the latter engenders nothing but evil. some one has said, that the love of the marvellous is the ancient malady of mankind; it would, perhaps, be more accurate to say, that it is a remainder of their original greatness; and that, being created to witness the marvels of the divinity, they are impelled, by an interior impulse, to believe whatsoever seems to them to approach to them, until such, time as their visions shall be fully gratified. this impulse only becomes a malady when it receives wonderful things which are absurd, or without any foundation. aversion from the marvellous, which has its origin in the weakness of a mind oppressed by sin, is a much greater malady, and may have most dangerous consequences, in a wholly marvellous religion which we must love. these marvels are displeasing in pious narratives, where they are fully proved, and they are sought for in theatrical compositions, where they are mere fictions: the distinction is dishonorable to christians. finally, as to the falsehood: what risk does the pious multitude run, in believing the miracles of the lives of the saints? they find nothing in them which is not proved, or worthy of belief; nothing but what may very prudently be believed; nothing but what is edifying; and this, according to st. augustine, is a sufficient guarantee from falling into any dangerous credulity. we should be very dangerously credulous, if we put our faith in false and deceitful miracles, which only tend to seduce the mind, and corrupt our belief. we are warned in the gospel, that "there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it be possible) even the elect;" and st. paul teaches us that antichrist, "that man of perdition, will come according to the working of satan in all power, and signs, and lying wonders." the father of lies has often inspired the heretics to produce miracles, which they have asserted to have been performed by persons of their party, living or dead, from whence they inferred that god authorized the doctrines they taught. ecclesiastical history furnishes many examples of this, and there are some very recent ones. but jesus christ has furnished us with a sure and infallible rule to avoid the contagion: it is to hear the church; it is to consider those only as true miracles of which she approves, and of which she sanctions the publication; it is to believe firmly that no one who is in revolt against the church will ever perform a miracle favorable to his sect, whatever appearance of austerity, piety, charity, or sanctity, he may put on; which st. thomas bases mainly on this principle: that it is impossible that god, who alone can give the power of working a true miracle, shall ever communicate that power to confirm a false doctrine; from whence it follows, that all the miracles produced by sectarians, notwithstanding all their evidence, and all their pretended attestations, must neither be examined nor listened to, and must only be looked upon as purely natural effects, or as impostures, or as delusions and diabolical operations. this is the way in which st. augustine expresses himself on the subject of the miracles which the donatists claimed to have performed, and claimed as evidence in favor of their schism. let catholics, therefore, reject with horror the false prodigies of sectarians, but let them piously give credit to the miracles of the saints, without paying attention to the ultra-criticism which strives to throw doubts upon them; and let them be intimately persuaded that the church, which approves of them, has founded that approval on evidence irreproachable. the marvels which are found in the life of st. francis are perfectly well attested. that life was first written by thomas de celano, one of his companions, who was directed by pope gregory ix. to compile it, and who afterwards added a second part on additional memoirs. john or thomas de ceperano, apostolic notary, who was a staunch friend of the saint, published at the same time what he knew of his actions. crescentius de jesi, general of the order of the friars minors, gave directions, by circular letters, to collect and transmit to him whatever had been seen or learnt, relative to the sanctity and miracles of the blessed father. he addressed himself particularly to three of his twelve first companions: leo, his secretary and his confessor; angelus and rufinus: all three joined in compiling what is called "the legend of the three companions." the others noted separately what they had themselves seen, and the things which they had learnt from others. saint bonaventure, being at the head of the order, was urgently entreated, by the general chapter, to write the life of their holy patriarch. with the intention of learning, with certainty, the truth of the facts, he went expressly to assisi, "there," he says, in the preface to his work, "i had frequent and serious conferences with those who had been in the confidence of the great man, and who were still living; and principally with those who were most intimately consociated with him, and who have become the most faithful imitators of his holy life, to whose testimony we must undoubtedly give credit, because their acknowledged sanctity assures us that they have spoken truth." now, what can the most exact and severe criticism wish more, in order to give warranty to the marvels in the life of st. francis, than contemporaries, ocular witnesses, holy persons, his own companions, who lived with him and enjoyed his confidence? the legend of saint bonaventure was spread everywhere, as soon as it appeared, and was everywhere highly approved: there are many manuscripts of it. lipoman, bishop of verona, caused it to be printed in . no one ever attempted to call its accuracy in question. octavian quoted it, in his petition to pope sixtus iv. for the canonization of the holy doctor, in . the first legends have been preserved in manuscript; the celebrated annalist of the order of friars minors, luke wading, saw them and made use of them. he was one of the most learned men of his time, and all other learned men have been loud in his praise, not only on account of his profound erudition, but because he was so ardent a lover of truth, which he sought for with great care, and having developed it, nothing could hinder him from publishing it and committing it to writing. the uprightness of his heart was conspicuous on a certain occasion, which is too honorable to him for us to pass it over in silence. he had been one of the examiners nominated by pope innocent x. to inquire into the writings of jansenius, bishop of ypres, and he had convinced himself that the five propositions which appeared to be censurable in those writings might be tolerably explained in a certain theological sense. those who are themselves upright are not easily brought to think ill of others, particularly in difficult affairs, and they sometimes endeavor to justify them, through charitable feelings, which are praiseworthy in principle, but which may have evil consequences, when a doctrine is in question which has been widely spread, and which is supported by a cabal. wading, seeing that the five propositions were censured by various constitutions of the pope, made a report on the whole affair, with the following beautiful declaration, worthy of a truly catholic doctor: "if, before this decision, any one shall have been of a different opinion (as to the five propositions) on whatever reasonings, or whatsoever authority of doctrine, he is now obliged to bend his mind to the yoke of faith, according to the advice of the apostle. i declare it to be what i do with all my heart, condemning and anathematizing all the aforesaid propositions, in all and every sense in which his holiness has proposed to condemn them, although, before this decision, i thought they might have been maintained in a certain sense, in the manner i have explained in the suffrage which has been just seen." we may feel assured that a man of this upright character, such a lover of truth, and, moreover, one of such eminent talents, would not have made use of the two legends of thomas de celano and that of the three companions, without having ascertained their correctness. moreover, the critics of his time, who were particular, and in great numbers, had it in their power to examine them as those of our times have, also, since they are still extant in the convent of st. isidore at rome. the first, which was composed under the pontificate of gregory ix., was quoted by luke, bishop of tuy, when he wrote against the albigenses, in . it is to be found in the abbey of longpont, of the order of citeaux, in the diocese of soissons, and in the abbey of jouy, of the same order, in the diocese of sens. the legend of the three companions is in the king's library, at the recollets of louvain, and in their convent at malines. these are the principal sources which were consulted by wading for writing the life of st. francis, which forms part of the first tome of his annals. he also consulted the acts and public monuments, the constant tradition, and some manuscripts of the thirteenth century, which contain other testimonials from the companions of st. francis, and were published by contemporaries who lived with them, who collected their very words, and who are worthy of credence. but the most marvellous thing which he relates, relative to the actions of the saint, he has taken from the legends, as well as a great number of the splendid miracles which were operated by his intercession after his death, and of which pope gregory ix. was fully informed, as he declares in the bull of canonization. all modern authors who have given the life of st. francis in various languages, have adhered mostly to wading; in this work, also, we have made a point of following him; and the learned, who have so much esteem for that great man, will agree that we could not have taken a better guide. baillet admits that, among the writers of the life of st. francis, luke wading is one of the most careful and most accurate; and yet he taxes him with not having written methodically, when he adds: "after all the labors of so many persons, who have been zealous for his glory, we are still compelled to wish for a methodical history of his life." whoever may read the annals of wading, and his notes on the works of st. francis, will find in them as much method as research and accuracy; but according to some ultra-critics, it is not considered writing methodically, when marvels which they dislike are permitted to find their way into history. baillet might have said that it has been long a subject of complaint that we have not in our language a complete and methodical life of st. francis. this complaint is the more just, as the saint had a particular liking for france; he had learned the language with so much facility, and spoke it so readily, that they gave him the name of francis, although he was baptized john. paris was one of the first objects of his zeal; he would even have gone thither, if a cardinal had not detained him in italy for reasons which related to his order. not having it in his power to undertake this mission, which he had much at heart, he destined for it some of his principal followers. there are some who affect to think that, in the lives of the saints, their example should alone be proposed to the public, imagining that the miracles they have performed can nowise contribute to the edification of souls; and two authors of this century have ventured to suppress all miracles in the lives of saints which they have published. the church, nevertheless, causes them to be recited in the divine office, and they are carefully related by the holy fathers; neither does any author of repute, of the centuries preceding, fail to bring them forward. in fact, no one can deny that they add great resplendency to the merits of the saints, and, consequently, give great weight to the example they afford us. they uphold and increase the idea we have of the power of god, of his providence, his justice, his bounty, and his mercy, by which they excite us to glorify, love, and serve him; and, in showing his special good-will to his servants, they induce us to invoke their mediation with confidence. moreover, miracles strengthen the faithful in their faith, because, being performed in the bosom of the catholic church, they confirm the truth she teaches. now, it is not of less consequence to strengthen faith, than to propose that which tends to the correction of morals, particularly when incredulity makes as much progress as licentiousness. moreover, the miraculous actions of the saints frequently contain most salutary instructions, and are always accompanied by virtues which may be imitated, which will be very apparent in the life of st. francis. some may, perhaps, think that his virtues are too transcendent for imitation, and content themselves with admiring them, without gathering any fruit from them. a celebrated heresiarch admired them in this manner, in the last century. bossuet remarks, in his excellent "history of the variations," that "luther reckoned among the saints not only st. bernard, but also st. francis, st. bonaventure, and others of the thirteenth century; and that st. francis, amongst all the rest, appeared to him to be an admirable character, animated with wonderful fervor of mind." but the faithful in admiring his virtues, must not think them not to be imitated, for they consisted in following the gospel; and they are all obliged to live according to the precepts of the gospel. rev. candide chalippe, o.f.m. contents book i his birth--prediction of his future greatness--his studies--he applies himself to commerce--his purity, and affection for the poor--he is taken prisoner--he falls sick--his charity increases towards the poor--he has a mysterious dream--he wishes to go to the war--jesus christ dissuades him--he is rapt in spirit--his conversion--he kisses a leper--jesus christ crucified appears to him--salutary effects of this apparition--he goes to rome--mingles with the poor--is tempted by the devil--a voice from heaven commands him to restore the church of s. peter damian--his devotion to the passion of jesus christ--he takes some pieces of cloth from his father's house, and sells them, to restore the church of s. damian--he escapes from the anger of his father, and retires to a cave--he appears in assisi, where he is ill-treated--his father confines him--his mother delivers him, and he returns to s. damian--he manifests his intention to his father, who appeals to justice, and cites him before the bishop of assisi--he renounces his inheritance, and gives back his clothes to his father--the poverty of his clothing--he is beaten by robbers--retires to a monastery--they give him a hermit's habit--he devotes himself to the leprous--receives the gift of healing, and returns to assisi, where he searches for stone to restore the church of assisi--he toils at building as a laborer--he lives on alms--his father and brother exercise his patience--the victories he gains over himself--people begin to esteem and honor him--he predicts something which is fulfilled--he restores the church of s. peter and that of s. mary of the angels, or the portiuncula--dwells at s. mary of the angels, and is favored there with heavenly apparitions--he is called to the apostolical life--renounces money and goes discalced--his poor and humble habit--god inspires him to preach--he weeps bitterly over the sufferings of jesus christ--receives three disciples, and retires with them to a deserted cottage--he goes on a mission, and his disciples accompany him--the way they are treated--he receives three other disciples--he makes them beg for alms--what he said to the bishop of assisi, on renouncing all his possessions--he predicts to the emperor otho the short duration of his glory--it is revealed to him that his sins are remitted--he is rapt in ecstasy, and predicts the extension of his order--he makes several other predictions, and receives a seventh disciple--he proposes a new mission to them--the address he makes them on their preparation for, and conduct during, the mission--he returns near to assisi, where he receives four more disciples--he assembles all his disciples--composes a rule, and goes to obtain the pope's approval--he makes a marvellous conversion--he knows miraculously what will happen to him at rome--he is at first repulsed by pope innocent iii., but is afterwards received favorably--difficulties on the approbation of his rule--he overcomes them by an address he makes the pope--the pope approves his rule, and accumulates favors on it--he leaves rome with his friars for the valley of spoleto--god provides for his necessities--he stops at a deserted church--consults god on his mission, and returns to the cottage of rivo-torto--his sufferings there--the instructions he gives--god shows him to his brethren under a most marvellous aspect--the church of s. mary of the angels is given to him--he establishes himself there with his friars book ii he receives many novices--instructs and models them--sends them to different provinces of italy--what he says on this occasion--he departs for tuscany, and passes by perugia, where he makes a prediction which is accomplished--many young men enter his order--they build a house for him near cortona--his miraculous fast during lent--he commands the devils, and they obey him--he cures many miraculously--he preaches at florence--makes a prediction--preaches in various places in tuscany--what his friars are doing in other places--he preaches the lent at assisi, with great fruit--he consecrates, to jesus christ, clare, and, agnes, her sister--establishes clare and agnes in the church of s. damian--he erects a monastery there, the first one of his second order, which he then instituted--he is troubled by a serious doubt, on which he consults his brethren--his doubt is cleared up by an oracle from heaven--he goes out to preach--restores a blind girl to sight, and converts many worldly people--he sighs for martyrdom--asks permission of the pope to preach to the infidels--makes conversions at rome, and establishes his order there--returns to assisi and leaves for the levant--embarks, but is obliged to put into a harbor in sclavonia--goes by sea to ancona--a miracle which god performs in his favor--he converts a celebrated poet--returns to tuscany, and to s. mary of the angels--he falls sick--wonderfully humbles himself--tries a vocation--falls sick again and writes to all christians--departs for spain and africa, in search of martyrdom--his miracles and other particulars of his journey--his profound humility--he raises the dead--count orlando gives him mount alverna--god miraculously protects him--he preaches in piedmont and passes into spain--works a miraculous cure there--the king, alphonso ix, permits him to establish his order there--he receives houses there--a violent sickness prevents him going to morocco--his actions whilst he is delayed in spain--he returns to italy--his route thither--he arrives at s. mary of the angels, and disapproves a building there--he goes to mount alverna--is beaten by devils--mortifies his sense, and taste--makes water spring from a rock--visits the mountain--converts there a celebrated brigand--leaves for rome--discovers some relics by revelation--makes predictions, and performs miracles and conversions--arrives at rome whilst the council of lateran is sitting--the pope declares to the council that he has approved the rule--he appoints a general chapter at s. mary of the angels, whither he returns--he holds the chapter and sends his friars to various countries--he thinks of going to paris--reunites an illustrious family that had been divided--rejoices in his poverty and asks of god a greater love of holy poverty--ss. peter and paul appear to him at rome--his alliance with s. dominic--he goes to florence, where cardinal hugolin dissuades him from going to paris--he returns to the valley of spoleto, and sends three of his disciples to france--a celestial vision induces him to ask of the pope a cardinal protector for his order--what he says on this subject--he preaches before the pope--what happened to him in the pulpit--the pope gives him cardinal hugolin, as protector of the order--he preaches in the valley of rieti--delivers the country from two plagues, and makes some conversions there--the houses he builds there--he appoints a general chapter at s. mary of the angels, for the year --what he did during the year --efficacy of his prayers--he wishes to pull down a new house which he found at s. mary of the angels book iii he goes to perugia, to consult the cardinal protector--his opinion on the promotion of his friars to ecclesiastical dignities--he returns to s. mary of the angels--his thoughts on these dignities--more than five thousand friars minors are present at the chapter he had appointed--he addresses the assembly, and forbids them troubling themselves about their food--assistance comes to him from all sides--he receives more than five hundred novices during this chapter--he forbids indiscreet mortifications--the devils are incensed against him and his order--he cautions his friars, and upon that gives them some instruction--he humbles them to preserve them from vainglory--he confounds those who wish the rule mitigated--he wishes not for privileges which can engender disputes--he gives his friars instructions about their conduct to ecclesiastics--he obtains from the pope letters apostolical confirming the approval of the order--what he decrees in the chapter--he sends his friars through the whole world--the travels of his friars in various parts of the world--in greece--in africa--in spain and portugal--in france--in the low countries--he himself prepares to go to the levant--on the government of the monastery of s. damian, and other houses of the same order--he sends six of his friars to morocco--what he says to them--he starts on his voyage to syria, with twelve companions--he rejects a postulant too much attached to his parents--a house at ancona is given to him--he appoints, by means of a child inspired by god, those who are to accompany him to syria--he embarks at ancona and anchors at the isle of cyprus--arrives at acre--distributes his companions in different parts of syria, and comes to the army before damietta--he arrives at the camp before damietta, and predicts the ill-success of the battle the crusaders are about to give--his prediction is accomplished--he finds out the sultan of egypt--announces to him the truths of the faith, and offers to throw himself into the fire to prove them--he refuses the sultan's presents--is esteemed and respected--the good dispositions with which he inspires the sultan--he obtains permission to preach in his states--he receives some disciples from the army of the crusaders--visits the holy places--some whole monasteries of religious embrace his institute--he returns to italy--establishes his order in various places--preaches at bologna with great success--what he says and does on seeing a house of his order too much ornamented--he makes a retreat at camaldoli--returns to s. mary of the angels--reads the thoughts of his companion--confounds the vanity of brother elias--abolishes the novelties introduced into the order by brother elias--in a vision the fortunes of his order are made known to him--he holds the chapter in which he deposes brother elias, and in his place substitutes peter of catania--he renounces the generalship--will not receive anything from novices entering his order--he learns the news of the martyrdom of the friars he had sent to morocco--what he says on the subject of their martyrdom--the martyrdom of these friars is the cause of the vocation of s. antony of padua--his friars pass into england--he visits some convents--receives the vicar general's resignation, and re-appoints, by the command of god, brother elias to his place--he holds a chapter, and sends missionaries to germany book iv s. francis begins his third order of penance--draws up the rule for it--what his idea was in founding this order--he returns to s. mary of the angels--sends agnes, the sister of clare, to florence, to be abbess there--he obtains from jesus christ the indulgence of s. mary of the angels or of the portiuncula--pope honorius iii. grants him the same indulgence--clare and others, hearing him talk of god, are ravished in ecstasy--he cannot bear the distinction of persons which brother elias made--makes a terrible prediction--he gives his blessings to seven of his brethren, to go and preach the faith to the moors, and they are martyred--he makes a journey, which is attended with remarkable circumstances--cures a cripple--mixes with the poor, and eats with them--foretells of an infant, that he would one day be pope--he changes the bed of thorns into which s. benedict had thrown himself, into a rose-bush, and performs other great miracles--goes to honor the relics of s. andrew, and those of s. nicholas--discovers a trick of the devil--he visits mount garganus--his presence silences a demoniac--he learns at s. mary of the angels the success of the german mission--bids antony preach--gives antony permission to teach theology to the brethren--alexander hales enters the order--jesus christ appoints the day for the indulgence of the portiuncula--he obtains from the pope a confirmation of the same day--promulgates it, with seven bishops--he has a revelation about his rule--god makes known to him that he must abridge it--the holy spirit dictates it to him--some entreat him to moderate it--jesus christ tells him it must be kept to the very letter--his brethren receive it--he declares it comes from jesus christ, and speaks in praise of it--he obtains a bull from the pope, in confirmation of the rule--is attacked by devils-- celebrates the feast of christmas with much fervor--our lord appears to him as an infant--his sentiments on the celebration of feasts--discovers a stratagem of the devil--he commands one of his dead brethren to cease working miracles--draws up a rule for clare and her daughters--appears with his arms stretched out in the form of a cross while s. antony was preaching--foretells a conversion which immediately came about--he goes into retreat on mount alvernus--his contemplation and raptures--jesus christ promises him special favors--he fasts rigorously--a piece of his writing delivers his companion from a temptation--what he had to suffer from the devil--he prepares for martyrdom--he receives extraordinary favors in prayer--his perfect conformity to the will of god--jesus christ crucified appears to him under the figure of a seraphim--receives the impression of the wounds of jesus christ--he composes canticles full of the love of god--tells his brethren of the stigmata--they are seen and touched--he leaves mount alvernus, to return to s. mary of the angels--cures a child of dropsy--other miracles which he performed on the way--he strengthens himself with new fervor in the service of god--his patience in great sufferings--his desires for the salvation of souls--his prayer in suffering--god assures him of his salvation--he thanks him in a canticle--he learns the time of his death, and rejoices at it--he has various illnesses, and suffers extreme pain--he multiplies the grapes in a vineyard--god gives him sensible consolation--a heated iron is applied to the temple, and he feels no pain from it--he weeps incessantly, and says he does so to expiate for his sins--he prefers the danger of losing his sight to restraining his tears--his gratitude towards his physician--a miracle is worked by some of his hair, in favor of this physician--he miraculously heals a canon--his sufferings diminish--goes to preach--drives away a devil--foretells a sudden death, and it comes about--cures st. bonaventura in his infancy--all his sufferings increase--causes to be found for the love of god what could not be found for money--they take him back to assisi--they take him to sienna--he answers difficult questions, and foretells several things--he causes the blessing which he gave to his brethren to be written--they take him to celles, and thence to assisi--the bishop has him taken to his palace--the state of his order at the time of his last illness book v the violence of his illness does not prevent him from exhorting his brethren--he is touched at the fatigue which his illness caused them-- thanks god for the pains he suffered--dictates a letter to clare and her daughters--rejoices and thanks god for his approaching death--blesses his children--has himself carried to s. mary of the angels--blesses the town of assisi--informs a pious widow of his approaching death--blesses his brethren a second time, and makes them eat a bit of bread, blessed by his hand--gives a special blessing to bernard, the eldest of his children--what we may presume were his dispositions in receiving the last sacraments--he stretches himself naked on the bare ground--desires to be buried in the place of execution--exhorts his brethren--he has the praises of god sung when at the point of death--he speaks to his children, and blesses them for the last time--has the passion of jesus christ read to him--he recites the st psalm, and dies after the last verse--miraculous proofs of his beatitude--state of his body after death--the stigmata are seen and touched publicly--his obsequies--clare and her daughters see and kiss the stigmata--he is buried at assisi, in the church of s. george--the circular written after his death--his canonization--the church of s. francis at assisi--he is buried there--researches are made to find the sacred body--the mission of st. francis--the fruits of his labor. devotion of s. francis towards jesus christ crucified--to what a degree he loved poverty--how great was the austerity of his life--his humility--his obedience--his gift of prayer and contemplation--his love of god--his sentiments of filial love on the mystery of the incarnation--on the fast of jesus christ in the desert--on the mystery of the eucharist--s. francis, in his humility, would not be made priest--his devotion towards the mother of god--towards the angels and saints--his charity towards his neighbor--his zeal for the salvation of souls--his affection for the poor--the affection of his heart for all creatures--the pains he took to lead his brethren to perfection--his tender charity towards his brethren--his discretion and wisdom in the government of the order--his supernatural and acquired knowledge--the efficacy of his words--his supernatural and miraculous gifts--he drives away devils--brings the dead to life--heals the sick--has the gift of prophecy and discernment of spirits--he commands animals, and is obeyed--he performs many other miraculous actions--the great honors which were paid to him--his character and appearance--in what sense he was simple the life and legends of saint francis of assisi book i we here offer, to the pious reflections of the faithful, the life of a man who proposed to himself to practise literally the precepts of the gospel, to conform himself entirely to jesus christ crucified, and to inspire the whole world with god's love. such a purpose must seem great to all those who can appreciate true grandeur by the light of religion. in its contempt of the goods of the world, it manifests an elevation of mind far above the ostentation of the ancient philosophers; in its deep humiliations, an heroical courage; in its extreme simplicity, the most exalted sentiments; in its weakness, and in the apparent foolishness of the cross, the strength and wisdom of god. the infidels themselves admired all this, and it will be not less meet to revive the fervor of christians, and to increase the veneration they have always entertained for st. francis. he was born at assisi, a town of umbria, in italy, in the year , under the pontificate of lucius iii. peter bernardo, his father, was a rich merchant, whose principal commercial transactions were with france. his mother, whose name was pica, had only two sons, francis and angelo. the latter married at assisi, and some of his descendants were still at assisi in . god, who has often condescended to usher in his saints by portents, was pleased, at the birth of francis, to give signs of what he would be during his life. for some days pica had suffered great pains, without being able to give birth to her child, when a man, dressed as a pilgrim, came to tell her that she would only be delivered of her infant in a stable; he would be born on straw. although this communication appeared most strange, relatives, nevertheless, acted upon it. the patient was removed to the nearest stable, where she was successfully delivered; an event which may well be looked upon, as in the intention of providence, thereby to mark the conformity of the holy man to jesus christ, poor and humble; as much, at least, as the creature can be in conformity with the creator, and the servant with the master of the universe. this stable has been turned into a chapel, called in italian, "_san francesco il piccolo_"--"st. francis the little." over the door the following words, in very old writing, are inscribed: "this chapel was the stable of the ox and the ass, where francis was born, the mirror of the world." his mother had the name of john given to him at his baptism, his father being then absent in france. a stranger presented himself as his godfather, and he was accepted as such; whether it was that something extraordinary was perceived in this person, or that they had been struck with astonishment at the first event. the uniform tradition at assisi is, that this stranger disappeared after the ceremony, and that he left the impression of his knees on a marble step of the altar, which is shown in the cathedral church, with the baptismal font, on which these words in italian are engraved:--"this is the fountain in which the seraphic father, st. francis, was baptized." at the return from the baptismal ceremony, a man, who seemed to have been sent by god, as well as the other two, or rather an angel in human form, came to beg that he might be allowed to see the child and hold it. he took it in his arms, caressed it a good deal, and impressed upon its right shoulder a well-formed cross, as a mark of his consecration, recommending the nurse to take particular care of the child, not to expose him to the snares of the devils, who had a foresight that he would one day wage a severe war against them. one of these evil spirits was obliged to confess by the mouth of one possessed, whom they were exorcising, that the princes of darkness, alarmed at the birth of francis, had tried various ways to take away his life; and it was the saint himself who expelled this devil afterwards. these portents, marvellous as they are, are less surprising, when we consider the singular and marked favors which heaven destined for him. his parents brought him up with great care, and he was put to study with the clergy of the parish of st. george. after he had acquired some knowledge of letters, he was initiated in commercial affairs, the correspondence of which necessitated his learning the french language; he acquired it with so much ease, that his father gave him the name of francis, a name which he bore ever after. bernardo and francis pursued their avocation in a very different manner. the first, with no other object than his worldly interest, thought of nothing but his profits, and had no other care than that of accumulating. francis, who had not a particle of avarice, and had less thought of his profit than of dealing with honor, traded with nobler and more elevated feelings. but he loved the world, he frequented society, and spent a good deal in dress, festivities, and parties of pleasure. his father frequently reprimanded him on the subject of his expenses, but his remonstrances had little effect, because he had no consideration of the value of money, and he wished to be distinguished amongst his young companions, who always considered him as their leader. his mother, who was tender and generous, had more patience with him; and she said to those who spoke to her of his profusion, that from what she remarked in his conversation, in his actions, and even in his amusements, she had reasons to hope something great when he should come to maturer years. indeed, in all his demeanor, excellent prognostics for the future were observable: his temper was exquisite, mild, and condescending, his manners were agreeable and very polite; he was lively, and had great good sense: he was brave, and had a strong inclination to be generous, even to give beyond his means. although he plunged into the vain amusements of the world, there was nothing blamable in his moral conduct. by the special protection of heaven, he avoided the rocks on which youth is too often wrecked; he preserved the inestimable treasure of purity; it was also remarked that he was distressed at any licentious expressions, and never made any reply to them. god had imprinted in his heart great feelings of compassion for the poor, which increased from his infancy, and which induced him to afford them liberal aid, so that, following the gospel precept, "give to every one that asketh thee," he made a resolution to give to all who should ask alms of him, and principally if they should solicit it for the love of god. this feeling for the love of god had its effect upon him, even then, notwithstanding his dissipation; he could seldom hear the expression made use of, as he has since admitted, without being sensibly affected. it having once happened to him, in the hurry of business, to turn away a poor person who had asked a charity for the love of god, his conscience smote him immediately, and he ran after the poor man, relieved him amply, and made a promise to god that he would never refuse a single individual as long as it was in his power, when an alms should be asked for his love,--a promise which he faithfully kept to his death, and which, as st. bonaventure remarks, was of essential service in increasing the grace and love of god in his heart. what is there more likely to bring down the grace of conversion and sanctification, and increase the love of god, than the practice of works of mercy? the amiable qualities of francis rendered him a favorite throughout the town, where he was looked up to as the flower of the youth, and great hopes were entertained for the future in his regard. a man of simple manners, but enlightened from above, caused a still greater esteem to be entertained for him. when he met him in the streets, he spread his cloak on the ground before him, and as a reason for showing him so unusual a mark of respect, exclaimed:--"this young man will soon do great things: he will deserve all sorts of honors, and will be revered by the faithful." francis, who was unconscious of the designs of god, did not understand the meaning of this prediction. he knew not that these honors were to be rendered him only after severe humiliations, according to the words of the gospel. engrossed by the affairs of the world, and attached to its vanities, he thought little of this divine truth, and he had less taste for it; nevertheless he hoped that he should some day receive the honors which others foretold, and which god permitted him likewise to predict of himself in an affliction which came upon him. the towns of assisi and perugia were at war with each other; he was taken prisoner with some of his fellow-citizens: whether it was that he had taken up arms in the service of his country, or that he was beyond the limits of the town of his commercial affairs. his captivity, however, did not affect his spirits, he preserved his cheerfulness and good humor. his companions, who were dejected and cast down, were offended at this, and upbraided him with it, saying that he might, at least out of feeling for them, disguise them, disguise his satisfaction. "i am very sorry for you" he replied, "but as to myself, my mind is at ease and i am thankful that it is so. you see me now a prisoner, but at a future period, you will see me honored by the whole world." there was one among the prisoners whose quarrelsome temper and extreme ill humor caused him to be shunned by the others. francis entreated them to draw a distinction between his person and his defects, and to bear with him: not being able to induce them to do so, he had the charity to keep him company himself, and by his good advice, he rendered him more gentle. all were so delighted with his goodness of heart, that they sought his friendship. liberated from captivity, he returned to assisi, where god visited him with a long and severe illness, which reduced him to a state of great weakness. this was to prepare his soul for the influence of grace. as soon as he could walk, he wished to enjoy the beauty and air of the country; but he failed to be pleased therewith, and was even disgusted with what he had previously liked the most; he felt contempt for what he had before esteemed, and his own conduct appeared to him to be senseless. this change surprised him much, but it did not as yet make any alteration in his heart. the return of health renewed his attachment to the world, his ambition and vanity revived; he entertained fresh hopes of greatness, and paid once more great attention to his dress. thus it frequently happens that when god sends illness to worldly persons with a view to their conversion, these have no other effect than momentary reflections and promises, which are soon forgotten on the return of strength. however, francis became more and more charitable, and gave to all the poor either money or his clothes. having met a poor and ill-clad officer who was of a noble family, he saw in him the poverty of jesus christ, the king of kings, and being moved to pity, he gave him the new suit of clothes he had on. the following night god showed him in his sleep a great and magnificent palace, full of warlike arms, all marked with the sign of the cross, to give him an idea of the reward his charity was to receive. he asked whom all that belonged to; and he was answered, that the arms were for his soldiers. not as yet understanding the meaning of mysterious dreams, he took this as a token of the success he was to have in warlike achievements, without suspecting that the crosses he had seen had a totally different signification. at that time walter, count of brienne, in champagne, was waging active war against the emperor, in the kingdom of naples, on the subject of the claims of his wife alberia, the eldest daughter of tancred, king of cicily, who had been some years dead. francis resolved to offer him his services, in the hope of gaining military honors. he attached himself to an officer of distinction, who belonged to the count's army, and he set out with a good retinue, after having assured his friends that he was sure of acquiring great renown. he first went to spoleto, and there jesus christ addressed these benevolent words to him during the night: "francis, which of the two, think you, can be of the greatest service to you: the master or the servant, the rich or the poor?" "it is the master and the rich," he answered without any hesitation. "why then," continued our lord, "do you leave god who is the master and rich, to seek man, who is the servant and poor?" "o lord!" exclaimed francis, "what is it your pleasure i should do?" jesus christ then said to him: "return to your town; what you have seen signifies nothing but what is spiritual. it is from god, and not from man, that you will receive their accomplishment." the very next morning he retraced his steps towards assisi, to await the orders of the lord, without troubling himself as to what the world should say as to this precipitate return. his friends came as usual to propose a party of pleasure. he received them, as was his custom, with great politeness, and feasted them magnificently to bid them, thus honorably, an eternal adieu. on parting from them, he found himself suddenly struck with the vanity of all terrestrial things, and with the grandeur of all that is heavenly, by a communication from the spirit of god, full of mildness, but so internal, and so forcible, that his senses were brought into a state of inaction, and he himself remained motionless. he afterwards told his confessor, that, if he had been torn to pieces in this state of rapture, he would not have felt it; that, in that moment, he could only feel at the bottom of his soul. the company, quite alarmed, drew near him; and when he had recovered his usual serenity, they enquired of him, laughing, what had occasioned his extraordinary reserve; if, perhaps, he was not thinking of taking a wife? "it is so," he replied: "i shall take one, but one so noble and so beautiful, that such another will not be found in the whole world." evangelical poverty, which he afterwards embraced, was the spouse to which the holy ghost inspired him to allude. after this divine favor he disembarrassed himself as much as possible of his commercial affairs, to beg of god to know what he would have him do; and he usually went to pray in a grotto with a confidential friend, who left him there in entire liberty. the frequent recourse to prayer excited in his heart so ardent a desire for the celestial country, that he already looked upon everything that was earthly as nothing. he felt that this happy disposition contained a treasure, but he did not as yet know how to possess himself of the hidden prize. the spirit of god merely insinuated to him that the spiritual life, under the idea of traffic, must begin by a contempt of the world,--and under the idea of warfare, by a victory over self.--all spirituality not based upon these two divine lessons, will never have anything solid in it. francis had soon occasion to put these lessons in practice. as he was riding across the plains of assisi, he perceived a leper coming straight to him. at first he felt horror-stricken, but calling to mind that he had formed a resolution to labor to attain perfection, and that, in order to be a soldier of jesus christ, it was necessary to begin by obtaining a victory over self, he dismounted, kissed the leper, and gave him an alms. when he again mounted his horse, he no longer saw any one, though he looked all round the plain. filled with astonishment, and transported with joy, he fell on his knees to thank god, and formed a firm resolution to aim at still greater perfection. this is the effect of generous and courageous efforts, they draw down fresh graces, and reanimate our courage. he acquired also more inclination for retirement, he had no longer any liking but for solitude, for those places which were adapted to the holy sorrow of penance, where he unceasingly addressed himself to god in fervent prayer, accompanied by lamentations, which cannot be described: god at length favorably heard him. his fervor daily increasing, insomuch that he was wholly absorbed in god, jesus christ appeared to him as if attached to the cross. his soul, at this stupendous scene, was wholly penetrated, and, as it were, dissolved, and the image of his crucified saviour became from that time so strongly and intimately imprinted on his heart, that every time it recurred to his mind, he had a difficulty in restraining his sobs and tears. in this marvellous apparition he was made aware that these words of the gospel were personally addressed to him: "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." he received from them that foretaste of poverty and humility which became his characteristics, and so ardent a charity inflamed his heart, that he had the courage to devote himself to the service of the lepers. before this day they were so much his horror, that, far from allowing them to be in his presence, as soon as he saw them, at whatever distance, he turned away from them, and if they were near he passed on quickly, holding his nose. but for the love of jesus crucified, who was pleased to represent himself to the prophet isaias under the despised figure of a leper, he lowered himself to attending upon them in their hospitals, where, having abundantly supplied them with alms, he made their beds, dressed their sores, and performed for them the most abject services; he often even kissed their hands and their faces with great feelings of commiseration. the words which our saviour one day addressed to him while at prayer, stimulated him to continue this charitable exercise, notwithstanding his natural repugnance: "francis, if thou desirest to know my will, thou must despise and hate all that thou hast loved and wished for till now. let not this new path alarm thee, for, if the things which now please thee must become bitter and distasteful, those which now displease thee, will become sweet and agreeable." shortly before his death he declared that what had seemed to him most bitter in serving the lepers, had been changed into what was pleasing both for soul and body; and all those who strive to overcome themselves for the love of god feel, as he did, that the severest practices are soon softened down by the unction of grace. the sight of jesus christ fastened to the cross made him feel the misery of the poor so intensely, that he would have wished to employ all he had, and his own person, in their relief. sometimes he did strip himself to clothe them; and when he had not enough to satisfy them all, he unsewed or tore his clothes to divide among them. in the absence of his father he caused much more bread to be brought to table at their meals than was necessary; and when his mother asked the reason, he said, "that it was in order to give more quickly to those who came to ask for food." this pious mother saw with pleasure the charity of her son; and far from endeavoring to check it, she was not displeased at his leaving her alone at table, while he took to the neighboring sick the viands of which he stinted himself. an equally lively and respectful zeal induced him to come to the aid of such priests as were in want; he took particular care to provide for the decoration of the altars, in order the better to assist at the divine service. he bought the finest linen, and distributed it to the poor country churches to be employed at the sacrifice of the mass; and when this august sacrifice was about to be celebrated, if anything was wanting, or if the altar was not properly found in everything requisite, he would offer himself to the officers of the church, in order to supply what was required either from his purse or by his personal assistance. but all these good works did not come up to what he had figured to himself as requisite for perfection. he could have wished to withdraw into some distant country, there to practise voluntary poverty, which had already inflamed his heart. at first he resolved to go to rome, to visit the tomb of st. peter, moved by that grand devotion which god has often inspired in his saints, and which has been so frequent since the fourth century. he also proposed to himself to solicit from the almighty, by the intercession of the prince of the apostles, the grace to carry out the resolution he had come to of leading an apostolic life. after having recited his prayer in this holy place, he noticed that in the crowd of people some made but a slender offering, while others made no donation whatever. "what then," said he, "is devotion grown so cold? how is it that men do not offer all they have, and do not even offer themselves on a spot where the ashes of the prince of the apostles repose? how does it happen that they do not decorate with all possible magnificence this peter, on whom jesus christ has founded his church?" he contributed to the best of his power, leaving a considerable sum for that purpose; and what he had wished was subsequently executed. the sovereign pontiffs, and in particular sixtus v, who was a religious of his order, have rendered the basilica of st. peter so sumptuous and magnificent, that it is now the admiration of the universe. on going out of the church, he saw a multitude of poor, whom he immediately joined, as much for the affection he had for them, as for the love of poverty. he gave his clothes to him who appeared to be the most necessitous. the following day, having dressed himself with propriety, he set out on his return to assisi, praying god to guide him in the ways of holy poverty. the devil, who was sensible that the young man would become confirmed in his intention if he persevered in prayer, appeared to him under a most terrific form, and threatened him, if he persisted, to render him a dreadful deformity like unto an old woman of the town, who was so hideous that he could not even look at her. but the newly-enlisted soldier of jesus christ, who began to be inured to warfare, laughed at the threats of the tempter, and was more urgent in his prayers, for which purpose he chose underground places, where he could better defend himself against the snares of his enemy. the fruit of these holy exercises was a lively sorrow for the use he had made of the first years of his youth, and a great perseverance in the mortification of his senses, in order to bear the cross of jesus christ in his body, as he bore it in his heart. it was thus that francis acted before having changed his habit, or quitted the world. st. bonaventure says that he had then no other master from whom he received instructions than jesus christ; nevertheless, an author quoted by wading, assures us that he sometimes consulted the bishop of assisi. we may here say, in order that there may be no seeming contradiction between the two, that he received instructions from jesus christ only because he was inspired by him, but that he communicated with the bishop on the points on which he had been inspired; and we may be the more assured of this, as we shall see hereafter that this prelate had his confidence, and that there is reason to think that he was his spiritual father. the servant of god, walking and meditating one day out of assisi, near the church of st. damian, which was very old and falling into ruin, was moved by the holy spirit to enter it to pray. there, prostrated before the crucifix, he repeated three times the following beautiful words, which gave him great interior consolation, and which he subsequently made frequent use of: "great god, full of glory, and thou, my lord jesus christ! i entreat you to enlighten me and to dispel the darkness of my mind, to give me a pure faith, a firm hope, and an ardent charity. let me have a perfect knowledge of thee, o god! so that i may in all things by guided by thy light, and act in conformity to thy will." he cast his eyes, filled with tears, upon the crucifix, when a voice came forth from it, and he heard distinctly these words repeated three times, not interiorly, but loudly pronounced: "francis, go and repair my house, which thou seest is falling into ruin." so wonderful a voice, in a place where he was alone, alarmed him greatly, but he felt immediately the salutary effects of it, and he was transported with joy. the sense of these words chiefly related to the state of the church which jesus christ had purchased at the price of his blood, which the holy man was to repair in all its defects by his ministry and the labors of his disciples, according to the explanation which the holy spirit gave to him of them subsequently, which he communicated to his brethren, as st. bonaventure tells us. nevertheless, the powerful protection which he received from heaven for the repair of the church of st. damian, was an indication that the same words were to be understood to relate to that building also: as the sacred oracles had a twofold literal sense in the mouths of the prophets, one of which related to events which were at hand, and the other to a distant time, and to mysteries wholly spiritual. francis came to himself; he left the church fully resolved to undertake its repair, and left money in the hands of a priest named peter, who did the parochial duties of it, to keep a lamp burning before the crucifix, promising to give more, and to employ all he had for the use of this holy place. the voice which had issued from the crucifix renewed in his mind and heart the impression of the mystery of the passion. he felt himself interiorly wounded through the wounds of jesus christ, and he shed such burning tears, that his eyes were quite inflamed, and, as it were, full of blood, when he returned from prayer. to make his body participate in the sufferings which penetrated his very soul, and to punish himself for the levities of his youth, he imposed on himself a very rigorous abstinence, with various other kinds of mortification. the eagerness he felt to commence the repair of st. damian's church, suggested to him means by which the work might be begun. after having fortified himself by the sign of the cross, he took from his father's stores several pieces of cloth, which he sold at foligno, together with his horse. he came back on foot, and offered the money respectfully to the priest of st. damian for the repair of the church, and in aid of the poor; humbly entreating him to allow him to remain some time with him. the priest consented to receive francis, but refused the money, fearing the displeasure of his father; and francis, who had utter contempt for money, not valuing it more than so much dust, when it was of no use for good works, threw it upon one of the windows of the church. the heretics of the last century, who calumniated the saint for many things, have deemed it criminal in him to have taken these pieces of cloth from his father's stores. st. bonaventure is of a different way of thinking; he has not thought that this action required justification; on the contrary, he calls the sale of the cloth and of the horse a fortunate bargain. and, indeed, without going into the right which the son may have had in the commercial affairs of his father, in consequence of their partnership, and of his age of twenty-five, had he not reason to think that, having received orders from heaven to repair a church, god, who is the master and dispenser of all goods, permitted him to employ a portion of the goods which were under his paternal roof, since he had no other means of obeying the injunction? but it is an extraordinary case, which must not be drawn into precedent. the general rule of christian morality is, that children may not dispose of anything without the permission of their parents even under the pretext of piety. bernardo on his return from a journey, having heard what his son had done, came in great wrath to st. damian's with several members of his family; and francis, who had not yet sufficient strength of mind to encounter the storm, and wished to avoid the first ebullition, went and hid himself in the priest's room. three contemporary authors assure us that, having placed himself behind the door, and pressing himself against the wall, when the door was opened he was miraculously let into the wall, so that he was not seen by those who were looking for him. when his father was gone, he retired secretly into a cavern, which was known only to one servant, from whom he received what was necessary for his immediate sustenance, and where he occupied himself in continual prayer, shedding abundance of tears, in order that he might be delivered from those who pursued him, and be able to accomplish the work which god had inspired him to undertake. after having passed a month in this place, he considered that it was in god alone that he ought to hope, without putting any confidence in his own exertions, and this thought filled him with interior joy, and raised his depressed spirits. reproaching himself, therefore, with his pusillanimity, he left his cavern and went straight to the town, as a soldier, who, feeling ashamed of having fled, returns intrepidly to the charge. of what is not he capable, who is fully persuaded that he can do nothing of himself towards his salvation, but that he can do all through god who imparts strength to him? on these two principles the saints have undertaken, and carried into execution, the greatest things. the inhabitants of assisi, who saw his face all pale and wan, and who remarked how changed were his conversation and opinions, thought that his mind was disturbed. he was called a madman, they threw mud and stones at him, and followed him, hooting and calling after him. but, without paying attention to these insults, and being on the contrary well pleased to bear these marks of the holy folly of the cross, the servant of god continued his way as if he had been deaf and insensible. bernardo being told that his son had returned, and was made the object of public derision, went immediately in pursuit of him, reproached him bitterly with his conduct, seized him and dragged him to his house, where he beat him severely, and confined him in a hole under the staircase. this severity had no effect in shaking the resolution of the holy prisoner; he even acquired more firmness, and encouraged himself to suffer by the words of the gospel: "blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." a short time after, when his father was on a journey, his mother, who did not approve of the severity with which he was treated, and who moreover had no hope of overcoming his constancy, set him at liberty. he gave thanks to god for it, and made use of it, to return to the church of st. damian. bernardo, not finding him in his confinement at his return, was not content with upbraiding his wife in the severest terms, but went off to st. damian's to drive him out of the country if he should not succeed in bringing him back. francis, to whom god had given strength, presented himself boldly to his father, and told him decidedly that he cared not for his blows, nor for his shackles--that he was prepared willingly to suffer all sorts of evils for the name of jesus christ. his father, seeing that there was nothing more to hope in his case, thought of nothing further than to get back the money for the cloth and the horse. he found it in the window where francis had thrown it, when the priest refused its acceptance, and then his wrath was somewhat appeased. avarice, which is never satisfied, induced bernardo to believe that his son had other money, and he had him summoned before the city magistrates, to account for it. francis appeared before their tribunal and told them that he had changed his state of life, that god had delivered him from the slavery of the world, and that he had nothing more to do with its affairs. the magistrates, who knew his conversion and his perseverance, saw something grand in his demeanor, and told his father, who urged them to put interrogatories to his son, that this affair ought to be carried into the bishop's court. bernard addressed himself to that authority, not only to compel his son to give up what money he had, but to force him to renounce his claims to any paternal inheritance. francis, who was a sincere lover of poverty, cheerfully consented to all that was required of him, and said that he would willingly appear before the bishop, who was the pastor and father of his soul. as soon as he was there, without waiting for his father to make his demand, and without saying anything himself, he gave up what money he still had, and then stripped off his clothes, even to his shirt, under which it was seen that he wore a hair-shirt, and gave them up to his father, addressing him in the following beautiful words: "until this time i have called thee father on earth; but from henceforward i may boldly say, our father who art in heaven, in whom i have placed all my treasure, and all my confidence." the prelate, who was a man of great worth, admiring this excess of fervor, and moved even to tears, rose up, and embracing the servant of god, covered him with his cloak, and ordered his servants to bring such clothing as was necessary for him. it was no doubt by a dispensation of divine providence that a bishop pressed to his bosom him who was to combat so strenuously for the service of the church. they brought an old cloak belonging to a laborer, who was in the employ of the bishop, which francis received with great satisfaction, and with which he clothed himself, making on it a cross with some mortar which he met with accidentally; thus manifesting what he wished to he, a half-naked poor one, and a crucified man. this occurred in the year , when he was in his twenty-fifth year. st. bonaventure, who gives the name of spiritual intoxication to the admirable fervor with which he stripped himself in order to be able to follow jesus christ nailed on the cross, says that, moreover, in order to avoid the shipwrecks of the world, he fortified himself with the representation of the wood which was the instrument of our salvation. emancipated from the ties of worldly desires, as he had wished to be, he now sought for some sequestered spot, where alone and in silence he might listen to the voice of god. in a wood, through which he was passing, singing the praises of god in the french language, some thieves surrounded him and asked him who he was. "i am the herald of the great king," he replied, in a prophetical sense, with perfect confidence in god. on receiving this answer, they beat him cruelly, threw him into a hole that was full of snow, and ridiculed the title he gave himself. when they had left him, he again began to sing the praises of god in a louder voice than before, delighted to have had an opportunity of suffering. at a neighboring monastery, where he implored alms, which he received as a contemptible beggar, they employed him for some days in the vilest affairs of the scullery. but seeing that this interfered too much with his spiritual exercises, he came to gubbio, where one of his friends, having recognized him, gave him, in order that he might be more decently clad, a hermit's dress, a short tunic, a leathern girdle, shoes, and a staff. in this penitential habit, he subjected his body to additional austerities; and in order to fulfil all the functions of humility, to which he was much attached, he devoted himself to the service of the lepers. he was constantly seen in their hospitals, moving about in all directions to aid them, preventing all their wants, showing the greatest compassion for them, washing their feet, cleansing their sores, removing the matter, and, by a wonderful effort of charity, kissing their disgusting ulcers. he received from god in reward the gift of healing; and this was a figure of the evangelical cures, which he was soon to apply to the diseases of the soul. among many proofs which st. bonaventure adduces of his having the gift of healing miraculously, he mentions that of a man of the duchy of spoleto, whose mouth and cheeks were eaten away by a dreadful cancer, and for whom all sorts of remedies had been fruitlessly employed. this man met francis returning from rome (whither he had been to implore the assistance of the blessed apostles), who, out of great respect, wished to kiss his feet; this the humble francis prevented, but kissed the cancerous face, which was instantaneously cured. the same saint remarks: "i know not which is most to be admired, such a kiss, or such a cure!" the servant of god, who now acknowledged no other country than heaven, and who was fearful of being the cause of some of his father's violences, proposed to himself to take up his abode in gubbio and devote himself to the exercises of charity, without returning to assisi; but calling to mind the order which had been given him by the voice which came from the crucifix, to repair the church of st. damian, he thought himself bound to obey it, at least by "questing" for what was requisite for working at it. the profound humility which he had acquired by the degradations he had subjected himself to, gave him the courage he required for begging in his native town, where he had been known to have possessed everything in plenty. having cast aside all bashfulness for the love of jesus christ poor and crucified, he went through the centre of assisi as one inspired, publishing the glories of god, and soliciting stones for the repair of the church; addressing his fellow-citizens with simplicity, thus: "whosoever will give me a stone, shall have a reward; whoever will give two shall have a double reward; and he who gives three shall be rewarded threefold." many treated him with contempt, and turned him into ridicule. others could not understand how a young man of a good and opulent family, with excellent prospects, hitherto considered as the model of the young men of the place, could demean himself to such a degree as to beg in his native town. some thought that such a change could only come from god, and were greatly moved by it. but the new-made pauper, having no respect for the opinions of men, and receiving cheerfully the insults put upon him, after the example of jesus christ, thought of nothing but the church of st. damian, for which he quested so successfully, that many persons, moved by his exhortations, furnished sufficient for its repair. he himself worked at it daily, and carried the materials on his shoulders as a common laborer, without any regard for his body, which was emaciated by the rigors of penance and fasting. the priest of st. damian took compassion on the pious workman, and took care to provide him with a substantial meal when he came in from work. francis having received this charitable succor for some days running, reflected on his situation, and said to himself as he afterwards told his disciples: "will you find everywhere a priest who has so much consideration for you? this is not the sort of life you have chosen: go, then, henceforward from door to door, as a poor man, and solicit food for the love of god, with an empty plate, on which you will put whatever may be given you. for it is thus you must live for the love of him who was born poor, who lived poorly, whom they affixed naked to the cross, and who was put after his death into another man's tomb." one must be very dead to self, have great contempt of the world, and a sincere love of god, to entertain such feelings and carry them out. the following day he took a plate, and went begging from door to door, and sat down in the street to eat. at the first mouthful he took of this disgusting mess, he felt a nausea in his stomach, which made him recoil. animated at the same instant by the love of poverty, he became ashamed of his weakness, and reproached himself for the feeling; after which, he ate the remainder without reluctance, and with so much relish, that he thought he had never eaten a better meal. he also felt an interior joy and strength in his body, which enabled him to bear with pleasure, for god's sake, whatever might be most severe or bitter. after having returned fervent thanks to the father of the poor, who had given him so wonderful a taste, he went to the priest and entreated him to take no further trouble with respect to his nourishment, "because," he said, "i have found an excellent purveyor, and a very able cook, who can season his dishes in a superior way." he often used such jocose expressions, which were as much the effect of the spiritual joy he felt, as of his natural lively and joyous turn of mind. bernardo, vexed in the greatest degree at seeing his son begging and exposed to the jeers of the public, was inflamed with anger, and either turned from him when he met him, or cursed him. francis admitted that these curses affected him more than any other suffering he endured, and he hit upon a method of protecting himself. it was to take another poor and miserable man with him, who should be as a father to him. he was engaged to bless francis, making the sign of the cross on him whenever his father cursed him. francis then said to bernardo: "believe me, my father, that god can give me, and indeed has given me, another father, from whom i receive blessings for your curses." his brother angelo, a young man full of the love of the world, also mocked him, and turned him into ridicule. seeing him one day in church shivering with cold in his poor hermit's dress, and praying devoutly, he said to one of his friends: "go and ask him to sell you a little of his sweat!" francis replied, "i do not choose to sell my sweat to men; i can sell it at a better price to god." if all christians thought thus, they would not suffer much pain for the world, which pays so ill, and they would do much for god, who rewards so magnificently. the pauper of jesus christ gained many other victories over himself in the quest he had taken upon himself for the building of st. damian. he suffered with admirable patience the persecution of some worldly persons, who treated him as a fool, and insulted him in a thousand ways. every time that it happened to him to blush when he met any of his acquaintances or friends, he reprimanded himself as if he had committed some great fault; he humbled himself the more, and begged for alms more submissively, to take down all influence of pride. one day when he was begging for oil for two lamps which he wished to keep constantly burning before the crucifix, from which the miraculous voice had been heard, he went into a house where some persons of his acquaintance were collected together for gaming. their sight struck him, and gave him a feeling of shame which induced him to retire. he had scarcely left the door, when, thinking on what he had done, he considered himself guilty of a great want of firmness, and he immediately returned to the place where they were at play, he acknowledged his fault before all present, and begged boldly for the lamps of the church in the french language, which set the company into an immoderate fit of laughter. such efforts show the truth of the remark of st. ambrose: that the saints were no less liable than ourselves to fall into faults; but that they had greater care to practise virtue, and to correct the faults into which they fell. pious and well-thinking persons remarked that the conduct of francis was maintained with an equality of fervor, and they found a high degree of wisdom in what appeared to the generality of the world to be littleness of mind and folly. these opinions gradually spread and brought over many to esteem and venerate him; even those who had despised and insulted him, came forward to solicit his forgiveness. the prior of the monastery where he had served in the kitchen, who was then at assisi, and who there became acquainted with his rare virtues, showed him great respect, begged him to pardon the treatment he had received, and excused himself, by saying, that he could not then be known under the miserable disguise under which he had hid himself. the man who had foretold that he would do great things, added to this prediction, while applauding himself: "you know what i before said to you of this young man; you only see the beginning of his holiness, but you will see the continuation: jesus christ will do wonders through him, which all the world will admire." the dispositions which were now entertained in his regard, procured for him the means of completing the repairs of st. damian towards the close of the year . in the course of this work, it was remarked that he said to those who passed by, "assist me in finishing this building; there will be a monastery here some day of poor females of holy life, whose reputation will tend to glorify our heavenly father throughout his holy church." this was a real prophecy, the accomplishment of which was witnessed five years afterwards, when he placed there the holy virgin clare and her companions, whom he had consecrated to jesus christ. this prophecy was so well known, that saint clare inserted its very words in the will she made in the year . at the beginning of the year , francis, not to remain idle, undertook a new work. he proposed to restore the church of st. peter, which was at a little distance from the town, in consequence of the devotion with which the purity of his faith inspired him towards the prince of the apostles; and this intention was soon put in force, because, it having been seen how carefully he had made use of the donations he had received for his first work, he was now furnished with what he required, more readily and more abundantly. he now was desirous of effecting some essential repairs to a third church or chapel, about a mile from assisi, which was very ancient, but so deserted and in such a state of ruin, that it only served as a refuge for herdsmen in bad weather: its name was st. mary of the angels, and ottavio, bishop of assisi, thus describes its foundation: "in the year of , a year after the appearance in the heavens of a luminous cross on the th of may, in broad daylight, over the city of jerusalem, which extended from mount calvary to the mountain of olives, a cross which was more brilliant than the sun, as st. cyril, then bishop of that city, and one of the eye-witnesses of the phenomenon, relates in his letter to the emperor constantius,--four holy hermits came from palestine into italy, and obtained from pope liberius leave to remain in the valley of spoleto, and settled themselves in the vicinity of assisi, with the permission of the authorities of the town. there they built a chapel which was called st. mary of josaphat, because they placed in it a relic of the sepulchre of the blessed virgin, and because the altar was consecrated by the title of her glorious assumption. in the sixth century it was given to the religious of the order of st. benedict, who enlarged and strengthened it; and it was afterwards called st. mary of the angels." we shall soon explain the reason of this. it was also called portiuncula, because of some portions of ground which the benedictines of mount saubazo possessed in the vicinity. we can easily understand that a man without any property, who was poor and a beggar, could not have accomplished these works without assistance from above; but st. bonaventure finds in it a still further mystery. he says that divine providence, who guided francis in all his actions, preordained things in such manner, that he repaired three churches previous to instituting there his orders, in order that the material temples should be the types of the three spiritual edifices which he was to raise up; and that passing from what is perceptible to the senses, to what is only apparent to the mind, and rising gradually to what is still more elevated, he was enabled to give to the church of jesus christ three descriptions of soldiery able to combat for the reformation of morals, and worthy to triumph gloriously in heaven. we may add, that the austerities, labors, and humiliations of the servant of god had been for the two previous years as so many strokes of the hammer, which rendered him a chosen and living foundation-stone on which these sacred edifices might be based. such is the method which is adopted by our lord. he prepares all things, and brings them successively to perfection; instead of which, men are always hurried, and often endeavor in the way to perfection to advance faster than the grace which directs them. of the three churches which francis had repaired, he chose that of st. mary of the angels for his residence, in order to honor the mother of god and the celestial intelligences. st. bonaventure says that he was often favored by visits from angels, on account of the frequent apparitions of these blessed spirits there. the man of god passed days and nights there in fervent prayer, when he entreated the blessed virgin, that as she had conceived and brought forth the word of the father, full of grace and truth, she would have the goodness to obtain for him a participation therein; it was there also, that, by the merits of this powerful advocate, he had the happiness to conceive and bring forth, if it may be so expressed, his evangelical life; the precious fruit of grace and truth, which the son of god had come to bring upon earth. one day when he was assisting in this church at a mass of the apostles, which he had requested the priest of st. damian to say, he listened attentively to the gospel where this form of life is prescribed by our saviour for the mission of his apostles: "do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff." after mass, he asked the priest to explain these words to him; he understood the sense of them well, and impressed them well on his heart, finding in them the image of that poverty which he loved: "this is what i seek for," he exclaimed, quite overjoyed, "this is what i desire with my whole heart." at the same instant he threw away his purse with a feeling of horror for money, he took off his shoes, he replaced his leather girdle by a cord, and devoted his thoughts to putting in practice what he had just heard, and to conforming himself in all things to the evangelical rule. it is a vocation similar to that of st. anthony, of whom st. athanasius relates, that having heard in the church these words of jesus christ, "if thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor," he went immediately to put this counsel in practice, in order to attain perfection. the hermit's tunic, which francis still retained, appeared to him too delicate; he therefore got one coarse and rough, of an ash gray, which came down to the feet, and the sleeves of which reached to the fingers; to this he added a hood, which covered sufficiently the head and face. this description of dress he continued to wear during the remainder of his life, except that the tunic and hood had sometimes more or less length or breadth, as is seen in his habits which are preserved with great veneration at assisi, at mount alvernia, and at florence. seeking nothing but poverty and humility, he chose the dress that was the plainest, the most despicable, and the most likely to make himself despised by the world, whose vanities he held in utter contempt; it was also the dress most like to that of the shepherds, and other country peasants, who chose it to protect them from the weather; or rather he imitated the prophets, who only covered themselves with a sack, to which he afterwards added a short cloak. all the events just narrated happened in the year , which is reckoned the first year of the order of st. francis, because it is the one in which he took the habit, which he gave in the following year to such as chose to imitate him, and in which the first stone was laid which served as a foundation for this spiritual edifice. then god inspired him to preach, to exhort sinners to repentance, and to cause evangelical perfection to be loved in the world. although he expressed himself in a very plain manner, his discourses had nothing in them that was low; they were solid and animated with the spirit of god, and so effectually penetrated the hearts of his hearers, that every one was surprised at it. he always began them by the following salutation, which he afterwards declared had been revealed to him by god; "may the lord grant you his peace." it was noticed that a very pious man, who was in the habit of addressing the two following words to all whom he met, "peace and weal,--peace and weal!" was not seen in assisi after francis began to preach; as if he wished it to be understood that his mission had ended by the presence of him whose precursor he was. in fact, this new preacher was in truth an angel of peace sent from heaven to reconcile a great number of sinners with jesus christ, and to draw down on them all sorts of benefits. he joined to the ministry of the word the exercise of every sort of virtue, and applied himself particularly to prayer, where the sufferings of our blessed saviour made such impression on his soul that he groaned and sobbed aloud, when he found himself at liberty. one of his friends, passing by the church of st. mary of the angels, having heard him, went in, and seeing him bathed in tears, reproached him with it as of a weakness unbecoming in a man. "i weep for the passion of my lord jesus christ," answered francis, "and i ought not to be ashamed of weeping openly before the whole world." this enviable emotion was in the heart of st. augustin, when he said to his people: "the passion of jesus christ, which the church puts every year before us, moves and affects us as if we saw him personally stretched on the cross; there are none but the impious who can be insensible to it.--as for me, i wish to lament with you in considering this affecting spectacle. this is the time in which to weep, to acknowledge ourselves criminals, and to pray for mercy. which of us would have it in his power to shed a sufficiency of tears to equal the merit of so great and so worthy a subject of grief?" every christian ought to blush, if he is wanting in these sentiments of gratitude and love. the words and actions of francis soon became noised abroad. some became converted, and embraced the penitential course he preached. others formed the resolution of leaving all and joining him. the first was bernard de quintavalle, a rich and discreet man, of one of the best families of assisi, who had great influence in the town, and guided it by his advice. this respectable man, as st. bonaventure called him, considering the contempt with which francis viewed all the things of this world, was desirous of ascertaining whether it was in truth an effect of sanctity, or of littleness of mind. he invited him, therefore, to supper and to sleep at his house, and had a bed prepared for him in his room. while he feigned to sleep soundly, he saw by the light of a lamp francis get up, fall on his knees, melt into tears, his eyes raised to heaven, his arms crossed, pronounce slowly these words: _"deus meus et omnia,"_--"my god, and my all," which he repeated during the whole night. so ardent and so tender an expression is quite convincing that he was then in an exalted state of contemplation, where interior communications made him sensible that the lord was especially his god, and filled the whole soul. happy he who can with truth say, _deus meus et omnia_. for this it is requisite that he should belong wholly to god, and that the world should be nothing to him. bernard did not interrupt francis in his holy exercise, but, filled with devotional feelings, he said to himself, "truly this is a man of god." after having put him to other proofs, he resolved to give all his goods to the poor and follow him, and he put this question to him: "if a man had received from his master a certain portion for several years, and then wished no longer to make use of it, what do you think it would be best for him to do?" francis said in answer, that he ought to return it to the master from whom he had received it. "it is i," replied bernard, "who have received a great deal from god, and much more than i have deserved; i return it willingly into his hands, and place it at your disposal; for i mean to attach myself to you." at these words, francis, delighted to find that god began the accomplishment of his works by so worthy a personage: "your intention," he said, "is one of great importance; you must consult god upon it, to learn from him how you are to put it in execution. early to-morrow morning we will ask the curate of st. nicholas, who is known to be a most worthy man, to say a mass for us, and after having heard it, we will continue in prayer till the hour of tierce." we see in this the mode of acting of one who has the spirit of god; he hurries nothing, he has recourse to prayer, and he makes use of the ordinary practices of the church. the following day they did what they had proposed; after which, francis, who had great devotion to the three persons of the blessed trinity, opened three times in their honor the book of the gospels, entreating the almighty to confirm, by the testimony of their texts, bernard's holy resolution. at the first opening they found the following: "if thou wilt be perfect, go sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor." at the second: "take nothing for the journey." at the third: "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me." then francis, addressing himself to bernard, said: "there is the life we must lead, the rule we must follow, you and i, and all those who shall desire to join us. go thou and put in execution what thou hast just heard." the new disciple, intimately convinced that his design came from god, sold, as fast as he could, all his effects, from which he got a considerable sum, which he had carried to the square of st. george, and distributed it entirely among the poor whom he could collect. francis then gave him a habit similar to his own; he called him his eldest son, and was always tenderly attached to him: he was indeed a most holy man. peter of catania, canon of the church of st. ruffinus, the cathedral of assisi, edified by the self-denial and charity of bernard, was disposed to become a disciple of the same master, and received the penitential habit on the same day, which was the th of april. all three retired to a hut which had been deserted, near to a rivulet called _rivo torto_, on account of its winding so very much. seven days after that, a very pious man called giles, who was greatly looked up to in assisi, on his return from the country learnt what his two fellow-citizens had done, which had excited the admiration of the whole town, and felt an ardent wish to imitate them, and thus carry out an intention he had entertained of devoting himself to the service of god. he passed the following night in prayer, when he was inspired to offer himself to francis, for whom he had already great esteem, on account of the extreme contempt of the world and of himself, which was remarked in the whole of his conduct. in the morning he went to the church of st. george, whose festival it was, there to implore the saint's intercession, that he might find him whom he was seeking, of whose abode he was ignorant. seeing out of the town three roads, without knowing which to take, he addressed the following prayer to god: "o lord, most holy father, i entreat thee by thy mercy, if i am to persevere in this holy vocation, so to guide my steps that i may arrive at the place where thy servant lives whom i am seeking." he took one of the three roads as god inspired him; and as he walked full of his holy project, francis, who was at prayer in a neighboring wood, came out to meet him. as soon as giles saw him, he went to him, and threw himself at his feet, and begged the favor of being received into his society. the holy man, who was at once satisfied of the faith and piety of the postulant, replied: "my brother, your request is that god would receive you as his servant and soldier. this is no small favor. it is as if the emperor were to come to assisi, and wish to make choice of a favorite; each one would say, 'i wish to god it may be myself.' it is thus god has made choice of you." he assured him that his vocation came from heaven and exhorted him to persevere. then presenting him to bertrand and peter, he said: "here is a good brother, whom god has sent us." and when he was alone with them, he told them that giles would one day excel in sublime virtue. after a slender meal, and a spiritual conference, francis set out with his new postulant for assisi, to procure what was requisite for clothing. on the way, a woman having asked charity of them, the saint turned to giles, and with an angelic countenance, said: "my dear brother, let us give this poor woman the cloak you have on for the love of god." giles gave it immediately, and it seemed to him that this alms ascended to heaven, which filled him with great joy. they begged at assisi for some very coarse cloth, with which francis clothed his third disciple, in the small hut where he instructed him in the religious exercises of a religious life. francis did not permit his disciples long to enjoy the sweetness of a life of retirement. having informed them that they were bound to go forth to instruct their neighbors by unstudied words and an edifying life, he sent bernard and peter into emilia, and set out himself with giles for the march of ancona. these apostolic men preached everywhere the grandeur and goodness of god, the obligation of each one to love him, to obey his love, and to do penance. when they wanted the necessaries of life, they rejoiced, as if it were a treasure that they had purchased at the price of all they had possessed. some persons received them obligingly, and did them good offices; but the singularity of their dress, and the rigor of their mode of life, shocked most of those who saw them. they were even frequently insulted, covered with mud, dragged by their hood, and severely beaten: this they joyfully bore, judging from the interior profit which they derived from it, that it was greatly to their advantage. their virtue, nevertheless, caused them to be treated at times with respect, and honors were even rendered to them. this mortified them, giles in particular, who only gloried in the mortifications which he suffered for jesus christ's sake, and could not bear to be so honored. he said to his father: "when men honor us, we lose our glory." he also expressed to him his dissatisfaction that the mode of greeting which he had taught them, "may the lord grant you his peace," was ill received by the men of the world. "pardon them," replied francis, "for they know not what they do. i verily assure you that hereafter there will be many nobles and princes who will respect you and your brethren, when you shall address those words to them." he foretold to him likewise that his institute would spread, and that it might aptly be compared to a net which a fisherman casts into the river, with which he catches a multitude of fish. the pious missionaries having gone through several towns, and given great satisfaction, returned to the hut at rivo torto, when a fourth disciple offered himself: his name was sabbatin. morique, a religious of the order of crosiers, or cross-bearers, was the fifth. being sick, and in extremity, given over and abandoned by the medical men of the hospital of st. saviour of assisi, where all strangers were received, he got himself recommended to the prayers of francis, who willingly prayed for him, and mixed a little crumb of bread with the oil of the lamp which burnt before the altar of st. mary of the angels. this he sent him by two of his brethren, saying to them: "take this to our dear brother morique. the power of jesus christ will not only restore him to perfect health, but will cause him to become a generous soldier, who will enter into our militia, and will persevere in it." the sick man had hardly swallowed the remedy when he was quite cured, and he soon after entered the institute of his charitable physician, in which he lived in prodigious austerity during a long life, and enjoyed perfect health. a sixth disciple, called john, and surnamed de capella, began well, but finished ill. he was employed to distribute to his brethren what was given to them in alms, and he took willingly the trouble of procuring for them what was wanted. but by little and little he got attached to temporal things, went too much abroad, and was very much relaxed from the regular discipline. the holy founder having frequently reprimanded him severely, and without effect, he threatened him for his contumacy with a severe illness and a miserable death. in fact, this unworthy religious was stricken with a horrible leprosy, which he had not patience to endure. he forsook the poor of jesus christ, his companions, and, letting himself fall into despair, he hanged himself, as judas had done. st. antonius remarks that the life of st. francis was in conformity with that of jesus christ, even in the circumstance of having had an unworthy disciple. he only became such by his depraved will; but god in his wisdom made him serve as an example to show that we may be lost even in the most holy states of life if we cease to labor with fear and trembling for our salvation. peter rodulphus, bishop of sinigaglia, in the duchy of urbino, adds, that the loss of one of the first children of st. francis, and still more that of judas in the apostolic college, should induce those who are inclined to think ill and contemptibly of a whole order, on account of the ill-behavior of some individual, to reform their method of forming their opinions. among the instructions which francis gave to his disciples, he laid great stress on poverty, the practice of which might appear to them to be very severe. in order to render them wise herein by experience, and to make them feel that their subsistence depended on the charity of the faithful, he took them all into assisi, and made them beg from door to door. this voluntary mendicity, which seemed new, and which had hardly been seen till then, drew down upon them derision, contempt, rebuffs, and angry words. in one place they were treated as sluggards and idlers, and turned away with curses; in another they were told they were fools to have given up their own property to go begging from other people. the parents and relatives of those who were thus begging, asserted that their families were dishonored by these practices, and made loud complaints. there were, however, some who respected their poverty, and aided them with good will. such was the feeling of the public of those times in regard to evangelical poverty, which differs but little from what it is in our own days. after this quest, francis went to report to the bishop of assisi the proceedings of his new soldiers. this worthy prelate, who greatly valued him, and gave him his support on all occasions, could not help telling him then, that he thought the sort of life he had chosen, in which they gave up all possessions whatsoever, hard and grievous. "as to me," replied the holy man, "i find it still harder and more grievous to possess anything; for one cannot take care of what one possesses without much solicitude and embarrassment. it gives rise to lawsuits, which must be undertaken; sometimes people are obliged to take up arms to protect it; and all this extinguishes the love of god and of our neighbor." the bishop approved of his remarks, and once more promised him his protection. it is true that the state of voluntary poverty in which a person possesses nothing whatever, has its inconveniences; and where does human corruption fail to find such? but it cannot be denied that the state in question is very favorable to salvation, since it is based upon the counsel of jesus christ; and that, on the contrary, the possession of property is dangerous for salvation, since he himself has said emphatically: "how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of god." while the evangelical poor continued at rivo torto, the emperor otho iv, who was on his way to rome with a great train, in order to be consecrated and crowned by innocent iii, passed by their hut. they were too mortified to pay any attention to the pomp of his retinue; but francis ordered one of them to go to the emperor and tell him that all the glory which surrounded him would be but of short duration. the religious obeyed, and boldly told the emperor what had been commanded. the prediction displeased the prince, who, nevertheless, admitted from the event that it was well founded. for, having violated his coronation oath, and committed various injustices towards the church, he was excommunicated the following year by the same pope; and afterwards deprived of his empire, and abandoned by the whole world. it is thus that the greatness of the world, so fickle in itself, and always put an end to by death, falls sometimes even before that, by misconduct, and by the just judgments of god. zeal for the salvation of souls induced francis to move his small troop into the valley of rieti. he halted at an abandoned hermitage on a large rock, which he thought to be a convenient place for entering into conversation with god. being at prayer one day on this rock, and ruminating in the bitterness of his soul on his past years, he was assured, by a fresh inspiration of the holy ghost, that his sins were forgiven him, which filled him with joy. we cannot doubt but that his sins had been remitted him at the period of his conversion, by sincere contrition and the sacrament of penance. but in this happy moment he received the assurance thereof by revelation, and he learnt at the same time that the remission was entire, that is to say, that all the temporal punishment due to his sins had been remitted. st. bridget, whose revelations are sanctioned and respected by the church, relates that she learnt from our saviour that, when francis retired from the world to enter on the way of perfection, he obtained from god a lively sorrow for his sins, which enabled him to say: "there is nothing on earth which i am not heartily willing to give up; nothing so laborious and so toilsome that i would not joyfully endure, nothing that i would not undertake, according to the strength of my body and soul, for the glory of my lord jesus christ; and i will, as far as is possible, excite and induce all others to love god with their whole hearts, and above all other things." such beautiful sentiments, well lived up to and exemplified by actions and conduct, would give us, not an entire assurance as to the remission of our sins, but a firm and well-founded confidence thereof. the holy penitent received with this plenary indulgence the grace of an ecstasy, wherein, by a bright illumination from on high, god communicated to him what was to occur to his order. when he returned to join his disciples he said:--"take courage, my dear children, rejoice in the lord. be not cast down at the smallness of your numbers. let not my simplicity nor yours alarm you, for god has shown me clearly that, by his blessing, he will spread this family of which he is the father, into all parts of the world. i should wish to be silent on all that i have seen, but charity compels me to communicate it to you. i saw a great multitude coming to us to take a similar habit, and to lead the same life. i saw all the roads filled with men who walked hither, and hastened themselves very much. they came in great numbers, french, spaniards, germans, english, and from almost all nations. the noise of such as come and go, to execute the orders of holy obedience, still sounds in my ears." so magnificent a prediction reminds us of the prophet isaias on the establishment of the church: "jerusalem, thou who sayest, i am barren! lift up thine eyes and look all around thee. all this vast multitude surrenders itself up to thee. i see them coming from afar--some from the north, others from the west, others from the land of the south; a thousand will come forth from the smallest among them, and from the very least a great people." the event has verified, in the eyes of the universe, the prophecy of the holy patriarch. there was in a very short time a great number of religious; his order extended itself to all parts with astonishing rapidity, and it has multiplied itself so wonderfully for seven centuries, that it may be looked upon as a representation of the birth and progress of the church. the disciples, greatly comforted by what they had just heard and persuaded that their master had the spirit of prophecy, entreated him to inform them what would in future be the situation of his order. he explained to them in parables the good which would be effected by it, and at the same time the relaxations which would be introduced into its discipline, in order that the graces of god, which were to be bestowed on it, might excite their utmost gratitude, and that the fear of their weakness and want of fervor might render them vigilant and humble. the odor of sanctity which issued through the environs of the hermitage, and the holiness of their lives, brought many persons to them for instruction, and to profit from the edification they would receive. a very worthy person, whose name was philip the long, was desirous of entering the state of evangelical poverty. francis made him his seventh disciple, and he brought them all back to the hut at rivo torto. in this holy retreat he spoke to them frequently of the kingdom of god, of the contempt of the world, of renouncing of their own will, of the mortification of the senses, and other maxims of a spiritual life. he opened to them also his intention of sending them into the four parts of the world; for, with the seven children which evangelical poverty and simplicity had given him, it was his wish to bring all the faithful to penance, and to generate them in some measure anew by the word of truth, to give them, or rather to restore them, to jesus christ. in fine, he told all his disciples openly, but with great humility, that the divine majesty had, in his wisdom, decided to employ them, and the companions they should aggregate to their community, to renew the face of the earth, by their preaching and their example, in order that the losses the church had sustained by the corruption of morals, might be made good; and that it was for this purpose that grace had put it in their power so promptly to exercise the holy ministry. in order to prepare them for this mission, he made them the following discourse, which is worthy of being recorded at full length, in the words in which it has been preserved by his companions, to whom it was addressed:-- "let us consider, my dear brethren, what our vocation is. it is not only for our own salvation that god has called us by his mercy, but it is for the salvation of many others. it is in order that we should exhort all the world, more by example than by words, to do penance and to keep the divine precepts. we are looked upon as senseless and contemptible, but let not this depress you; take courage, and be confident that our lord, who conquered the world, will speak efficaciously through you. let us be cautious, after having given up all, not to lose the kingdom of heaven for a trifling gain. if we find money anywhere, let us consider it as valueless as the dust which we tread under our feet. let us not judge and despise the rich who live in luxury and wear the ornaments of vanity. god is their lord, as he is ours; he may call them and justify them; we must honor them as our brethren, and as our masters. they are our brethren, because we have all the same maker; and they are our masters, because they befriend the good by the assistance they afford them. go then, and exhort men to do penance for the remission of their sins, and for peace. you will find some among the faithful mild and good, who will receive you with pleasure and willingly listen to you. others, on the contrary, people without religion, proud and violent, will censure you, and be very hostile to you. but make up your minds to bear all this with humble patience, and let nothing alarm you. in a very short time many learned and noble persons will join themselves to you, to preach to kings, to princes, and to nations. be therefore patient in tribulations, fervent in prayer, and fearless in labor. be unassuming in speech, be grave in your manner, and grateful for the favors and benefits you may receive. the kingdom of god, which is eternal, will be your reward. i entreat the one and only god, who lives and reigns in three persons, to grant it to us, as he doubtless will grant it to us, if we are faithful to fulfil all that we have voluntarily promised." this discourse filled them with fresh ardor. they threw themselves at the feet of the holy man, and joyfully received the orders he gave them, in addressing to each one of them these words of the psalmist, which he was accustomed to repeat when he gave those instructions which required obedience: "cast thy care upon the lord, and he shall sustain thee." having divided the routes they were to take, by forming a cross which pointed to the four quarters of the globe, and knowing that he was to be the model for his brethren, he took one side for himself with a companion, and sent the other six, two and two, to the other sides. wherever they found a church, they prostrated and made use of this formula, which they had learnt from their father: "we adore thee, o most holy lord jesus christ! here and in all thy churches which are in the whole world, and we bless thee for having redeemed the world by thy holy cross." they had a great veneration for all chapels, for all crosses, and for all that had any relation to the worship of god. as soon as any one addressed them, they wished him peace, and instructed him in the way to gain it. if any one appeared to them to have strayed from the way of salvation, they endeavored to bring him back in a mild and humble manner. in their sermons they spoke ingenuously whatever was inspired them by the holy ghost, pointed out the true way to heaven, showed what were the duties of charity, and endeavored to bring all to love and fear the creator and keep his holy commandments. when they were asked from what country they came, and to what profession they belonged, they replied: "we are penitents come from assisi;" for they would not as yet give the name of religion to their society. there were worthy people who received them with pleasure; but there were many others who disapproved of their habit, their institute, their discourses, imagining also that it was dangerous to give them house-room, and that alms ought not even to be given to them; so that these poor of jesus christ, cast off on all sides, had often to pass the nights under porticos. bernard and giles went as far as florence. a pious individual named guy offered them some money, which they refused, and when it was wished to know from them, why, being so poor, they would not take it, they made this answer: "we have left all that we possessed, according to the evangelical counsel. we have voluntarily embraced poverty, and we have renounced the use of money." so perfect a detachment, joined to an ardent zeal for the salvation of souls, and to sublime virtues, and particularly a patience full of meekness and charity in the midst of insults and injurious treatment, caused them to be looked upon in the town as holy personages; they were consulted in cases of conscience, and dwellings were offered them. while these apostolic men continued their mission, francis, guided by the spirit of god, returned to the hut at rivo torto, where he received four additional disciples: constantius, or john of st. constantius; barbarus; bernard of viridant, or vigilantius; and sylvester, who was a priest he was the first in the order, and his vocation was marvellous, of which the following are the circumstances. he had sold some stones to st. francis for the church of st. damian, and had received the payment of their value. when he saw him preside over the distribution of the property of bernard de quintavalle, he complained of having been injured in the sale of the stones, and demanded a compensation. the servant of god, who did not choose to have any dispute with him on the subject, taking a bag full of money, gave him handfuls, saying: "take this for the payment you demand from me, but which i do not owe you." he offered him some a second time, but sylvester would not take it, but left him well satisfied with what he had got. at night the injustice of what he had done occurred to him; he conceived a sincere sorrow for it, asked pardon of god, and promised to restore what he had extorted to the prejudice of the poor. nevertheless, he formed his opinion of francis according to the ideas of the world, and he looked with disgust on his mode of life. god was pleased to will that he should be cured of this prejudice, which was dangerous for his salvation, and that he should surrender himself to the saint as one of his disciples, which was effected by means of a mysterious dream. during the night he saw a horrible dragon, which surrounded the town of assisi, as if about to destroy it, together with the entire country. francis immediately came forth, and from his mouth there came forth a golden cross, which reached up to heaven, and the arms of it extended to the extremities of the earth, and its splendor put the dragon to flight. having had this dream three successive nights, he perceived in it something divine, and he went and related it to francis, with the minutest exactness. this humble servant of jesus christ, far from having the least complacency at it, only made use of it to admire the goodness of god who grants such favors, and to animate himself to combat the infernal dragon with renovated energy, and publish the glory of the cross of our saviour. but sylvester, profiting by the grace attached to the vision, was not satisfied with restoring what he had unjustly extorted; he resolved, moreover, to leave all that he possessed, to embrace poverty under the guidance of francis, which his affairs did not permit him to carry into execution till the end of the year . st. bonaventure says, that on authentic proof of the truth of the vision was the holiness of the life he led when in the order. in fact, he undertook so sincerely to walk in the footsteps of jesus christ, and made such vast progress in prayer, that, according to the account of this blessed father, he conversed with god in a manner nearly similar to what is written of moses: "that the lord spoke to him as a man is accustomed to speak to his friend." francis, full of the tenderest feelings for his children, was desirous of having them all assembled together. he entreated the lord, who had in former times congregated the people of israel dispersed among the nations, to do him a similar favor in regard to his small family, and his prayer was heard. the six who were out on missions returned to assisi from various places, as if they had acted in concert, without having any notice given them. the pleasure which their return gave him was greatly increased by the sincere and modest recital which they made him of all that had passed in their travels for the glory of god and the benefit of their neighbor. they gave an account, with evident joy, of the outrages and blows they had endured and suffered, pleased to have been found worthy to undergo those trials in the service of jesus christ. the last comers envied them, and were only consoled by the thought and hope that a time would come when they would be employed in this holy warfare, and, should an opportunity be given them, of displaying equal courage; the seniors embraced the latter, and congratulated them on having chosen this holy estate of life: they all exhorted each other to perseverance. their common father brought them up in the practice of the most rigorous penances, but with the utmost mildness and kindness. he did not impose upon them any considerable number of prayers because he was not desirous of compelling devotion, and rather wished that these exercises of piety should be spontaneous. he only then prescribed to them to say daily, for each part of the divine office, the lord's prayer three times, and to hear mass, at which he desired they should employ themselves in meditating on the mystery. it is, in fact, the very best way of assisting at the holy sacrifice, and the faithful should be advised to practise it. but those are not to be censured who make use of vocal prayer during mass, provided they do so with attention and piety in the very spirit of the mystery;--since there is nothing in prayer but what is good, and because, moreover, every one has not the talent of meditation. the servant of god, considering that the number of his brethren increased, thought seriously of forming a rule for them, and having assembled the eleven, the number they then were, he said to them: "i see, my dear brethren, that god, in his infinite goodness, proposes to extend our society; it is therefore necessary that we should prescribe for ourselves a rule of life, and go and give an account thereof to the most holy roman pontiff; for i am persuaded that in matters of faith, and in such as concern religious orders, nothing can be done which is pure and stable without his consent and approbation. let us then go and find our mother, the holy roman church. let us make known to our holy father the pope, what god has deigned to begin through our ministry, in order that we may pursue our course according to his will, and under his orders." a celebrated bishop of france said, in an assembly of his clergy: "paul, having returned from the third heaven, came to see peter, in order to give a form to all future ages, and that it be established forever, that, however learned or holy we may be, were any of us another st. paul, we must see peter." these sentiments are in entire accordance with those of st. francis, and contain an important principle, from which it is easy to deduce the consequence. all the disciples applauded the proposal of their master, declaring that they were ready to receive the rule that he would give them, and to go to rome to solicit its confirmation. francis betook himself to prayer, and composed, in a plain, unadorned style, in twenty-three chapters, a rule of life, the immovable basis of which was the observance of the gospel; to which he added some exercises, which he considered necessary for the sake of uniformity. besides the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, they renounced all possessions whatsoever, and they bound themselves to live on charity without ever receiving money. clerics and laymen were alike admitted to embrace this institute, under the name of friars minor. there were also some regulations relative to the divine office, prayer, the practice of virtue, fasts, the bareness of the feet, preaching, and the missions, which will be noticed when we come to speak of the second rule which the patriarch gave in the year , which they keep in his order, and which is nothing more than an abridgment of the first. this first having been read and accepted, francis with his brethren set out for rome, to which, through humility, he chose that bernard de quintavalle should lead them. they pursued their journey with great simplicity, only speaking of god and of things calculated for edification; they often retired to some by-place for the purpose of praying, without troubling themselves where they should pass the night; and god raised up persons who received them hospitably. by an effect of his providence, they went out of their way to go to rieti, where they remained two days. francis met in one of the streets an officer of the army, whose name was angelo tancred. he was quite unknown to him, but, nevertheless, he accosted him by his name, and said: "angelo, you have worn long enough your spurs, your sword, and your belt; it is time that you should have a thick cord instead of a belt; the cross of jesus christ instead of a sword; and mud and dust instead of spurs. follow me, therefore, and i will make you a soldier of jesus christ." at the very moment the officer quitted all things, followed francis, took his poor habit, and became his twelfth disciple, who now by their number resembled the twelve apostles, whose lives they revered. this wonderful conversion shows that god sometimes moves sinners by his active and powerful grace; as when he said to matthew, "follow me," and matthew followed him. but it must also make us reflect that, in the ordinary course of things, he invites to repentance by graces, the impressions of which upon the mind are not so active. the holy patriarch continued his route, placing his entire confidence in god; but the others became alarmed at their own simplicity, they were fearful that it would impede their design; but god removed their fears by a vision which their holy father had. it seemed to him that he was walking along a way where there was a very high tree. coming near it, he went under it to admire it, when all on a sudden he felt himself raised up in the air by divine power, so that he had reached the top of the tree, and that from thence he easily made the tallest branches bend quite to the ground. the holy spirit pointed out to him that this was a presage of the favorable issue of his application to the apostolic throne. this filled him with joy, and his recital of it to his brethren renovated their courage. the bishop of assisi, whom they found at rome, received them with great kindness. the sight of them at first gave him some uneasiness, being apprehensive that it was their intention to leave his diocese, and that his people would be deprived of the examples of these holy men. but having learnt from them the motive of their journey, he promised them to use his influence in their favor, and gave them hopes of succeeding through the intervention of cardinal john of st. paul, bishop of sabina, who was his intimate friend. this prelate was of the colonna family; he was the friend of the poor, and of all worthy persons; he was respected for his many eminent qualities, and had great authority at the roman court. what the bishop of assisi had already told him of francis and his companions, of their holy life, and of the singularity of their institute, had excited in him a great wish to see them. as soon as he had heard of their arrival, he had them brought to his palace, received them with great honor, and was so pleased with their conversation, that, after having assured them of his favor, he begged them to consider him from thenceforward as one of themselves. he also declared himself their protector, and by his interference he soon procured for them the friendship of the principal persons in the sacred college, particularly that of cardinal ugolini, nephew to the pope, and subsequently pope by the name of gregory ix. francis, who was anxious to get his affairs expeditiously brought to a termination, got himself introduced to the pope by an officer of his acquaintance. the pope, who was walking at that moment in a place called the mirror, and being deeply engaged respecting some difficult affairs of the church, would not so much as listen to him, but repulsed him rudely as a stranger of no very respectable appearance. the servant of god humbly withdrew; and it is recorded that he then restored to sight a blind man who had had his eyes torn out. the holy father saw in his sleep a palm-tree grow slowly at his feet and become a fine large tree. pleased with what he saw, but not understanding its meaning, he learnt by a divine inspiration that the palm-tree represented the poor man whom he had ungraciously repulsed the day before. as soon as it was day, he gave directions that the poor man should be sought for. he was found in the hospital of st. anthony, and came to the feet of the pope, and laid before him the rule of life he followed, with energetic though humble solicitations for his holiness's approval thereof. innocent iii, a pontiff of great wisdom, acknowledged the candor and the admirable courage and zeal of the servant of god. he received him into his favor as one truly poor in jesus christ, and he was inclined to comply with his request; however, he postponed doing so, because his mode of life appeared novel to some of the cardinals, and so much, beyond what human strength could endure; the evil times, and the coldness of charity, making them think it very difficult and almost impossible for an order to subsist without possessing any effects whatever. cardinal john of st. paul was indignant at these obstacles, and he expressed himself with great warmth to the other cardinals in presence of the pope. "if you reject the prayers of this poor man, on the pretence that his rule is novel, and too austere, let us take care that we do not reject the gospel itself; since the rule of which he solicits the approval, is in conformity with what the gospel teaches; for, to say that evangelical perfection, or the vow to practise it, contains anything unreasonable and impossible, is to blaspheme against jesus christ, the author of the gospel." the pope, struck with this reasoning, said to francis: "my son, pray to jesus christ that he may make known his will to us, that so we may favor your wishes." the servant of god retired to pray, and soon after returned and set forth this parable. "most holy father, there was a beautiful young girl, who was very poor, and who lived in a wilderness. the king of the country, who saw her, was so charmed with her beauty that he took her for his wife. he lived some years with her, and had children, who all resembled their father, and had, nevertheless, the beauty of their mother; he then came back to his court. the mother brought up her children with great care, and after some time said to them: 'my children, you are born of a great king, go and find him, tell him who you are, and he will give you all that is befitting your birth. as to myself, i will not leave this desert, and i even cannot.' the children went to the king's court, who, seeing their resemblance to himself, and that they had the beauty of their mother, received them with pleasure, and said to them: 'yes, you are my true children, and i will support you as the children of a king; for, if i have strangers in my pay, if i maintain my officers with what is served at my table, how much more care should i not have for my own children, the offspring of so beautiful a mother! as i love the mother extremely, i will keep the children she has had by me at my court, and i will feed them at my table.' "this king, most holy father," continued francis, "is our lord jesus christ. this beautiful girl is poverty, which, being everywhere despised and cast off, was found in this world as in a desert. the king of kings coming down from heaven, and coming upon earth, was so enamored of her, that he married her in the manger. he has had several children by her in the desert of this world, apostles, anchorites, cenobites, and many others, who have voluntarily embraced poverty. this good mother sent them to their father with the marks of royal poverty, as well as of her humility and obedience. this great king received them kindly, promising to maintain them, and said to them: 'i who cause my sun to shine on the just and on sinners, who give my table and my treasures to pagans and to heretics, food, clothing, and many other things, how much more willingly shall i give to you what is necessary for you,--for you and all those who are born in the poverty of my much-cherished spouse.'" "it is to this celestial king, most holy father, that this lady, his spouse, sends her children whom you see here, who are not of a lower condition than those who came long before them. they do not degenerate; they have the comeliness both of their father and their mother, since they make profession of the most perfect poverty. there is, therefore, no fear of their dying of poverty, being the children and heirs of the immortal king, born of a poor mother, of the image of jesus christ, by the virtue of the holy ghost; and being to be brought up in the spirit of poverty in a very poor order. if the king of heaven promises that such as imitate him shall reign with him eternally, with how much more confidence ought we believe that he will give them what he usually gives, with so much liberality, to the good and to the bad." the pope listened very attentively to the parable and to its application. he was greatly pleased with it, and had no doubt but that jesus christ spoke by the mouth of francis. he was also convinced by an interior light of the holy spirit, that in him a celestial vision which he had but some days before would be accomplished, and which, as st. bonaventure informs us, he himself related. while he slept, he saw that the lateran church was on the point of falling, when a poor and miserable man supported it on his shoulders. on which he exclaimed: "yes truly, it is that man who will support the church of jesus christ by his works and by his doctrine." he thus foretold the great service francis and his children would render to the universal church, which indeed they have rendered, and, for the last six centuries, have not ceased to render: this was what was prefigured by the vision; although it has been remarked as something very singular, that the lateran church has been repaired, improved and ornamented by three popes, the children of the blessed patriarch, to wit, nicholas iv, sixtus iv, and sixtus v. innocent iii, moved and greatly affected by these celestial portents, conceived for francis a most tender friendship, which he preserved ever after. he approved his rule verbally, granted him several other favors, and promised many more. after having received in his own hands the profession of the founder, and of those who accompanied him, he directed him to preach penance in all parts, and to labor for the extension of the catholic faith. in order to enable them to employ themselves more freely in preaching, and to assist the priest with greater dignity in the performance of the holy mysteries, he directed that the lay brethren who were then with them, should receive the tonsure, and wear small crowns; he even conferred minor orders on them, and deacon's orders on francis, whom he constituted superior general of all the religious of the order of friars minor, present and to come. those who were present promised obedience to francis, and francis promised to obey the pope. the pious pontiff gave this new patriarch, with paternal kindness, instructions in various matters which related to the well-being and strengthening of the institution, and he assured him of his peculiar favor; and finally, having embraced each one of them, he gave them his blessing, and dismissed them filled with joy and consolation. we have witnessed these favors renewed in by innocent xiii, of happy memory, the fifth pope of the ancient and illustrious house of the counts of segni, to which innocent iii belonged. the holy father, assisted by four cardinals, had the goodness to preside at the general chapter of the order of st. francis, held at rome in the convent of ara coeli, making known to all christendom on that splendid occasion, that he looked upon the friars minor as his children, as much from family affection, as from his dignity of supreme pontiff. the illustrious author of the "variations," who quotes the abbot of ursperg, says that it was to give the church true poor, more denuded and more humble than the false poor of lyons, that pope innocent iii approved the institution of the friars minor assembled under francis, who was a model of humility, and the wonder of the age. the false poor, who are also known by the name of vaudois, and are placed in the number of heretics by pope lucius iii, assumed the exterior of poverty and humility, although they had none of the spirit of poverty and humility. they were filled with hatred of the church and its ministers, whom they reviled in their secret assemblies. in they feigned submission, and had the daring to go to rome, to solicit the approbation of the holy see for their sect, but they were rejected by the pope, and from that time were obstinate and incorrigible heretics. conrad, abbot of ursperg, who was at rome when they came there in with bernard their master, remarks that the friars minor were very different from the false poor, practised poverty with sincerity, and were free from all errors; that they went barefooted in winter, as well as in summer; that they received no money, and lived wholly on alms, and were in everything obedient to the holy apostolic see; an obedience which will ever be a mark by which true virtue may be distinguished from false. francis, finding himself protected by the almighty, and authorized by the pope, acquired great confidence. he placed his most apostolical order under the immediate protection of the holy apostle, whose tomb he visited. he took leave of the cardinals, john of st. paul, and ugolini, whom he made acquainted with his intentions, and to whom he expressed his great gratitude; then he took his departure from rome with his twelve companions, and bent his steps to the valley of spoleto, there to practise and preach the gospel. on the way he conversed with them on the means of adhering faithfully to the rule, and relative to the manner in which they should strive to attain perfection, so that they might be examples to others. one day the conference lasted so long, that the hour for their meal passed by without their having stopped; finding himself tired, they went a little out of the way to rest. they were very hungry, but they had no means of satisfying their craving. there then came to them a man who brought them a loaf, and immediately disappeared, without their having had it in their power to notice from what side he had come, or which way he had gone from them. then, says st. bonaventure, divine providence came to the aid of the poor of jesus christ, when all human assistance failed them. they were well aware that the company of their holy founder procured them this favor from heaven; and the miraculous nourishment they had just received, which renovated the strength of their minds as well as that of their bodies, by the interior consolation they received from it, inspired them with a firm resolution never to swerve from the poverty to which they had devoted themselves. pursuing their route towards orta, they came in the plain near that town to a church which had been deserted, and where, having offered up their prayers, they agreed to stop, until such time as they should learn where it was god's intention they should settle themselves. from thence they went, daily, to the town to preach penance in the public places; and it was with much fruit for the salvation of souls. the people began to feel attached to them; and as they saw that on their quest they refused everything but what was strictly necessary, they took very many things to the church in which they had retired, and those considered themselves fortunate who could make themselves useful to them. they even came in crowds to see them, and to listen to the discourses of these new men, whose actions and whose speech made them appear as persons descended from heaven. but francis, who found that this concourse of people interrupted and disturbed their spiritual exercises, determined to leave this place. the very beauty of it decided him to do so. it was a most agreeable spot; on one side there were meadows covered with beautiful flowers; on the other, a thick wood, where birds carolled the livelong day; near the church there was a fine spring, and a rivulet, whose waters murmured pleasantly around them; the view of the whole plain, with that of the town beyond it on the heights, was all that could be wished. the holy man was fearful lest so delicious an abode should enervate the minds of his disciples, that the vigor of their intellect, so requisite for penitential reflections, should become relaxed when surrounded by objects so pleasant to the senses; and lest that which inspired gladsomeness should make them lose the seriousness necessary in prayer, and deprive them of the spiritual delight which is felt therein. thus, as a skilful general who was the leader of the soldiers of jesus christ, and only followed his intentions, he made his little band raise their camp at the end of a fortnight, and resume their march towards the valley of spoleto. in the way they counselled together whether they should communicate with the world, or whether they should retire into some solitary retreat. francis, not choosing to trust either to his own lights or to those of his companions, had recourse with them to prayer, to ascertain what the will of god was on this head; and he learnt by a revelation, st. bonaventure says, that god had sent him expressly to gain souls which the devil was endeavoring to draw away from jesus christ. he therefore resolved to dedicate himself to this holy employment, and to live a life which should be useful to his neighbor rather than to himself; being likewise animated thereto by the example of him of whom st. paul said: "one died for all." with this view he continued his route to the valley of spoleto, and brought his brethren to the hut at rivo torto, near assisi, where he had been before. one must feel surprised that st. francis, with all the assurances he had of his vocation, could have doubted for a single instant that he had been sent by god for the spiritual service of his neighbors. but his doubts only had their rise in the powerful attractions he had for contemplation, which the tenderness of his conscience made him fearful of resisting, by employing himself in the exercises of an active life; and it was this that lessened his inclination for the functions of apostolicity; for, according to the doctrine of the fathers, and of saint bernard in particular, there are no more worthy ministers of the gospel than such as devote themselves to conversation with god in retreat, and who leave that retreat to preach the doctrines of salvation only when they have reason to think that god calls upon them to do so. our lord, who thus in his wisdom permitted that his servant should labor under this uncertainty, revealed to him already that he was destined to labor for the salvation of souls, and we shall see, further on, that he assured him again by other revelations. the hut in which these men devoted to evangelical poverty had retired, was so small and so confined, that, far from being able to lie at full length in it, there was barely room for them to sit, insomuch that their father was obliged to assign to each his place by writing his name on the joists, in order that they might pray and take their rest without being incommoded. they remained some time in this miserable habitation, which might be looked upon more as a tomb for the living, or rather for such as were dead to the world; and they bore it for the love of god, with more fraternal charity and gaiety than can be described. the life they led there was so laborious, and so poor, that frequently, not having a morsel of bread, necessity compelled them to search the country for herbs and roots, which they ate with satisfaction; preferring to be nourished with tears rather than with any other food. their most frequent exercise was prayer, and that more mental than vocal, because they had not as yet books for saying the divine office. a wooden cross, of moderate size, which francis had fixed in the middle of the hut, round which they prayed, served them instead of a book. they meditated on it unceasingly, and read in it with the eyes of faith, instructed by the example of their saintly chief, who often discoursed to them on the passion and cross of jesus christ. however, they wished to learn from him what vocal prayers they ought to recite; and he told them, as our blessed saviour had told the apostles: this is the prayer that you will say: "our father, who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name," etc. to which he added the act of adoration which he had before taught them: "lord jesus christ, we adore thee in all the churches in the whole world, and we bless thee for having redeemed the world by thy holy cross." he likewise taught them to praise god in all things, to make use of all creatures, to raise up their minds to him, to have great respect for priests, to be inviolably attached to the true faith, which is believed and taught by the holy roman church, and to confess it plainly. his faithful disciples put in practice all that he taught them, and conformed to all his maxims, which they did in still greater perfection after the marvel which we are about to relate. francis being one saturday in assisi, in order to preach on the sunday morning in the cathedral, as it was his custom to do, retired to a small shed in a garden belonging to the canons of the church, to pass the night in contemplation, which he usually did. about midnight, a fiery car of great brilliancy, on which there was a globe as bright as the sun, and which gave a light equal to that of noon, entered into the hut in which the brethren were collected, and moved round it three times. some of them were watching and praying; the others, who were taking a little rest, awoke. it is not to be said how great their astonishment was when they found themselves enlightened, as well interiorly as exteriorly, by this penetrating light, which manifested to them the state of their consciences. st. bonaventure remarks on the subject of this marvellous light, on the testimony of those who had been witnesses of it, that they understood well, by this luminous and burning figure, god represented to them the lively and holy flames which illuminated their father, who, though absent in the body, was present with them in spirit, in order that, as true israelites, like unto eliseus, they might look up to and imitate this new elias, whom he had appointed the light and guide for spiritual men. doubtless, he continues, the lord, who opened the eyes of the servant of eliseus, that he might see around that prophet, that "the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire," would also, at the prayer of francis, open those of his disciples to shew them the marvel which was operating in their favor. at his return from assisi, the father conversed with his children on the prodigy which they had witnessed, and took occasion from it to confirm them in their vocation. he entered in detail as to the secret dispositions of their consciences; he foretold them many circumstances relative to the increase of his order; he made known to them, in fine, so many sublime things beyond human ken, that they became perfectly aware that the spirit of god rested fully on him, and that their greatest security would be in a conformity of themselves to his life and doctrine. people were so greatly moved and affected by his virtues and his discourses, that many presented themselves to join his order, but he declined as yet to receive them, because the hut was too small for the twelve he had; but he availed himself of the opportunity to say to these: "my dear brethren, god, in his goodness, has made known to me that he proposes to increase our poor family. i cannot receive those who wish to join us, until i have a place large enough to admit all. we require a larger habitation, as well as a church, where we may hear mass, say the divine office, and deposit in peace those of our society who may die. let us therefore go to our lord bishop and the canons. let us earnestly entreat of them, for the love of god, to cede to us some church near the town, and to put our rising order under cover in some part of their domain. if they cannot assist us, we will go and ask the same favor of the religious of mount soubazo." the bishop of assisi and the canons had it not in their power to promote such views, having no church at their disposal; but the abbot of mount soubazo, with the consent of the community, granted him for himself and his brethren the chapel of st. mary of the angels, or of portiuncula, which he had put into repair, but he added this condition, that, if the institution became more extended, this church should be always considered the place of its origin, and the chief monastery. francis received the present, and accepted the condition with great thankfulness. he came and told his brethren of it, expressing the pleasure he felt, in having, for the first church of his order, a church of the blessed virgin, very small and very poor, obtained by begging, and in which he had first taken upon himself the apostolic life. on the same day he went to st. mary of the angels, where a pious ecclesiastic of assisi was living, whose name was peter mazancoli, to whom the care of that church had been intrusted after it had been repaired. he communicated to him the cession which the religious of mount soubazo had made to his order, and begged him to come and live with his brethren. as true piety, which is charity itself, is never jealous, and is delighted in what is of advantage to its neighbors, the ecclesiastic embraced francis, and assured him how desirous he was to see the blessed virgin honored and praised in this place, which she loved, where concerts by the angelic host were constantly heard. as a proof of this, he called a laborer of the vicinity, who certified to have several times heard in the night melodious canticles, and to have seen a great light come forth from the windows. the experience of francis himself was an additional proof. for, being in prayer during the following night in order to recommend his family to the protection of the blessed virgin, he saw on the altar, by means of a splendid light, our saviour jesus christ, his holy mother, and a multitude of angels, who cast upon him looks of great benignity. he adored, and recited these words: "o most holy lord, king of heaven, redeemer of the world, sweet love! and thou, o queen of angels! by what excess of goodness do you come down from heaven into this small and poor chapel?" he immediately heard this reply: "i am come with my mother to settle you and yours in this place, which is very dear to us." all then disappeared, and francis exclaimed: "truly this place is holy, which ought to be inhabited by angels, rather than by men. as long as i possibly can, i will not leave it; it shall be, for me and mine, an eternal monument of the goodness of god!" it became, in fact, a great object of devotion and veneration for himself and his brethren, particularly after it had been revealed to him that, among all the temples consecrated under the name of the blessed virgin, this was the one for which she had the greatest attachment. at break of day he sent for the other religious by his companions, with directions to bring with them the few pieces of furniture which they had in the hut at rivo torto, in order to place them in the house adjoining the church of st. mary of the angels, which the pious ecclesiastic willingly gave up to them. he communicated to the new guests the sanctity of the place they were about to inhabit, and recommended them to live therein holily, never ceasing to praise the lord. then he said to them: "you must be very grateful to the benedictine fathers for the benefit they have conferred upon us. they have consecrated all the habitations we shall hereafter have, by this house of god, which is the model of the poverty which must be observed in all the houses of our order, and the precious germ of the holiness which we must seek for in it." but, in order to show that he did not live there as on a property wholly his, as well as for a mark of his gratitude to his benefactors, he took care to have taken yearly to the abbey of mount soubazo, as a ground-rent, a basket of fish, a species of mullet, which is taken in quantities in the river asi, or chiascio, near the church of st. mary of the angels. the friars minor have always cherished the feelings of the blessed patriarch for the order of st. benedict. they will ever manifest, with sincerest gratitude, that it is to this great order, so ancient and so celebrated in the church, that they are indebted for their first establishment, and for many other benefits. book ii a. d. it was therefore in the small church of st. mary of the angels, or of portiuncula, that francis laid the foundations of the order of friars minor, which spread over the whole earth with wonderful rapidity. this holy place was, as it were, the cradle of the institute, and the nursery of the houses of the religious; the source which supplied a great river, which was divided into various channels; the citadel from whence numerous brave warriors went forth to encounter the enemies of the church; the school which has produced a very great number of saints, and a multitude of learned men, whose doctrine and piety have been equally celebrated. the new habitation, less confined than the hut of rivo torto, enabled the patriarch to receive the postulants who had before presented themselves; among whom may be noticed, leo, rufino, masseo of marigan, and juniper:--leo, whom francis chose for his confessor and secretary, and whom he generally called pecorella di dio (the sheep of god), on account of his admirable candor. rufino, of whom he said: "i learnt, by a revelation, that he is one of the most faithful and of the most pure souls that there is in this world, and i should have no fear of giving him, though in a mortal body, the title of saint, since he is already canonized in heaven." masseo, whom he often sent, instead of going himself, to converse with persons of piety, in order not to be interrupted in his own meditations, because this religious added great mildness and suavity of manner to a rare talent of speaking about heavenly things. juniper, whom he found so valuable for his evangelical simplicity, for his contempt of himself, and for his great desire to attract upon himself the contempt of the world, that, alluding to his name, he used to say good-humoredly: "i wish to god we had a wood full of such junipers." the charitable father had all his children in his heart, and he brought them up with a tenderness truly maternal. he was the first to go from door to door, to ask charity to provide for their wants; sometimes he even went alone, to spare them the mortification of begging, under the impression that they might still retain the prejudices of the world on this head. but the weakness of his frame not admitting of his providing for all, and his religious being bound to subsist on charity alone, he resolved to teach them to solicit it for the love of god, and he made them the following exhortation, which they have recorded:-- "my very dear brethren and well-beloved children, be not ashamed of soliciting alms, since our lord became poor in this world for the love of us, and that, following his example, we have chosen this state of the most perfect poverty. for, if we have made this choice for the love of jesus christ, we must not blush at begging in our quality of poor. heirs of the kingdom of god should not blush at what is a pledge of their heirship. yes, we are heirs of heaven; this is a benefit which our lord has obtained for us, to which he has given us a right, as he has to all those who choose to live in a state of holy poverty. i make known to you as a truth, that a great number of the most noble of the age will become members of the order, who will consider it an honor to solicit alms, and who will look upon it as a favor to be permitted to do so. you, therefore, who are the very first of the order, do this cheerfully; do not refuse to practise what you will have to teach these saintly personages. go, then, and with the blessing of god solicit alms, full of confidence and joy, more than would be felt by him who should offer a hundred for one. for it is the love of god you offer in asking, when you say, 'for the love of god, bestow your charity on me;' and in comparison with this divine love, heaven and earth are as nothing." to mitigate the reluctance still felt by some of them, he brought forward the two following motives: "the bread which holy poverty causes to be collected from door to door, is the bread of angels, because it is the good angels who inspire the faithful to bestow it for the love of god. it is thus that the words of the prophet, 'man ate the bread of angels,' are fulfilled in these holy poor ones. god has given the friars minor to the world in these latter times, that the elect may have it in their power to practise what will cause them to be glorified by the supreme judge, when he will address them in these mellifluous words: 'what you did to one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it to me.' it is pleasing to solicit charity in the capacity of a friar minor, whom our master seemed to designate expressly by the appellation, 'the least of my brethren.'" the disciples, persuaded and moved by this appeal, went of their own accord to quest in the neighboring places, to get the better of the natural repugnance they felt to it. at their return they presented themselves to their father with satisfied countenances, which delighted him, and by a holy emulation they were proud of the things they had collected for the love of god. one of them returning one day with much cheerfulness, singing loudly the praises of the great benefactor of men, francis took from him the weighty wallet, which was full of bits of bread, placed it on his own shoulders, kissed the shoulders of him who had carried it, and came and said publicly: "so it is that i wish my brethren to go always on the quest, and return from it: ever gay, and glorifying god for all the good which he does in our favor." the blessed founder employed himself day and night unceasingly in inspiring them with the love and practice of the most sublime virtues; he warned and exhorted each one of them in particular, and he made discourses to them when collected, on the most essential heads; and this again he enforced by his own good example; knowing that they were called by god to train up those who would embrace his rule in the different parts of the earth, and that on the instruction of the one depended that of the others. under such a master, with the powerful assistance which they received from heaven, they made in a short time such considerable progress, that the latest comers were not less competent for the exercise of the evangelical ministry than the first. altogether animated with the same spirit, watching, fasting, praying, penetrated with the fear of god, full of holy desires, they resembled in a great degree the primitive church confined in the supper-room. francis, who was perfectly acquainted with their most inward feelings, and with the intentions of divine providence, thought that he ought not to delay sending them forth on missions according to the idea of st. chrysostom, who says that the apostles, who were commissioned to labor in the conversion of the world, were necessarily separated, and that it would have been very prejudicial to the interests of the universe had they kept together longer. but, as he had not yet heard them preach, he desired prudently to judge by his own experience of their respective talents. having assembled them together, he desired bernard de quintavalle to speak on the mysteries of religion. he immediately obeyed, and spoke beautifully on the several points. peter of catania was directed to set forth the greatness of god, which he did with as much facility and learning as if he had been long perfect in the art of preaching. a third was called upon to give an exhortation on avoiding sin, and practising virtue, which he complied with in powerful language. in short, they all handled the subjects which were allotted to them, so as plainly to show that wisdom was given to them from on high. after they had made this essay in preaching, or rather this masterpiece of eloquence, jesus christ, who had inspired their thoughts and words, appeared in the midst of them in the form of a very beautiful young man, and gave his blessing to each of them successively, with wonderful benignity. this astonishing vision threw them into a rapturous transport; after which, francis addressed them as follows: "my brethren, and dear children, give abundant thanks to god most powerful, and to his son, our lord jesus christ, for having deigned to have communicated celestial treasures through the speeches of the most simple of men; for it is god who causes infants to speak, who opens the mouths of little children, and makes the tongues of the most ignorant eloquent: his goodness renders him compassionate to the world, which is loaded with crime. he has resolved to warn men of the woes into which they are plunging themselves; and in order to root out from amongst them the works of the devil, which are sins, he has chosen vile and despicable preachers, so that no one shall have reason to glorify himself before him, and that every one shall acknowledge that all the good which is done comes from him. although there are few among you of whom it can be said that they have worldly wisdom, or are powerful or noble, yet it is you whom the lord hath chosen for this important work. it is his will that you should go into all parts to honor him by your actions and by your words, bringing to his fear and to his love such as have strayed into evil ways." "prepare yourselves therefore to set forth; gird your loins according to the commands of jesus christ; be courageous; put on the armor of faith; be devoted to the service of the gospel; always prepared to let yourselves be carried away as clouds, whithersoever the spirit of god may direct you, by the guidance of obedience, to shed the dew of the divine word on the dry and arid soil of hardened hearts. for our lord has not called you into this institute to think of nothing but saving your own souls quietly, without any fatigue, in the hearts of your country, and in the bosom of your families; his intention is, that you carry his name and his faith into the nations, and before the kings of the earth. now, lest we should appear to be slow in carrying his will into execution, we will divide italy amongst us; and soon after, we will make other missions into more distant countries." to this discourse the disciples replied, that they were prepared for everything; that, having renounced their own will, they only waited the order to commence the journey; and that the distrust they had of themselves in consequence of their simplicity, was counterbalanced by the confidence they had in the assistance of the almighty, which animated them. the next morning francis divided italy among them, taking tuscany for himself with sylvester, who was the first priest in his order, so that he might, by this arrangement, be at the shortest distance from st. mary of the angels, where he left some of the brethren to guide the novices whom he should send there. two reasons induced him to make his beginning in italy. the first was, that it appeared to him to be just that the divine word should be first spread in that country, of which the preachers were natives, as the apostles had done in regard to the jews. the second was, that he might judge from what they should effect among the italians, what they were capable of effecting elsewhere: in which his judgment is to be admired. he could not doubt but that the vocation of his children came from god; nevertheless, he used all the precautions which prudence dictated, because he knew that the lord, who acts according to his good pleasure by secret and supernatural means, chooses that men on their part should pursue the ordinary course in all that depends on them. this is a sure ground-work, which is not only a rule in all that relates to salvation, but also is applicable to the affairs of this life. the man of god, having commenced his route towards tuscany, passed through perugia, where he preached in the great square, as is customary in italy. some young gentlemen, of the first families of the place, came also there for the exercises of the tournament, and made so much noise that the preacher could be no longer heard. as they continued their lance exercises, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the people, the saint, turning to the side in which they were, addressed them in the following words with great animation:-- "pay attention, and learn what the lord declares to you through me, who am his servant, and do not imagine to satisfy yourselves by saying, this is only a man from assisi who speaks to you." (a precaution he took because perugia and assisi, neighboring towns, were always opposed to each other.) "what i tell you, i do not tell you as man. god has raised you above all the adjacent countries; in gratitude for which you should humble yourselves, not merely in his eyes, but before all the world. but, on the contrary, your strength and your glory have so inflamed your pride, that you have pillaged and laid waste all that surrounds you, and you have killed no inconsiderable number. for which reason i declare to you that, unless you be speedily converted, and repair the damage you have done, the lord, who suffers no evil to be committed with impunity, will take revenge on your sins. in order to create in you the greater dismay, he will suffer you to rise up one against the other, to excite a popular commotion, and to do yourselves much greater injury than any of your neighbors could do to you." he remained some time at perugia, where they soon saw the effect of his threats. the nobles were irritated against the plebeians, the clergy joined the party of the nobles, and they came to blows; the people, who were the strongest, drove the others out of the town. the discomfited party, in order to be revenged, laid waste everything in the country which belonged to the people; who, by way of reprisals, pillaged the houses of the nobles, and massacred their servants and even their children. indeed the disaster was so great, that, according to the prediction, armed neighbors could not have caused any greater. the perugians having thus, at their cost, discovered the holiness of the preacher, wished to retain him in their city, and entreated him to choose what place he pleased for his abode. many young persons of pure morals joined his order; one among others, whose vocation was very singular. as he was walking one day out of the town, his mind intent upon his wish to consecrate himself to god, jesus christ appeared to him, and said: "man of desires, if you hope to be in the enjoyment of what you wish for, and to effect your salvation, take a religious habit and follow me." he immediately asked into what order he should enter. our lord answered him: "join the new order of francis of assisi." he then made this further inquiry: "lord, when i shall have joined that order, what mode of life shall i follow, to be more agreeable to thee?" and this is the answer he received: "lead the usual life; enter into no particular intimacies with your brethren; take no notice of the defects of others, and form no opinion to their disadvantage." these are admirable means for living holily and peaceably in a community. the young man came and offered himself to francis, who knew that jesus christ had sent him, and he admitted him immediately, giving him the name of brother humble, on account of the humility he found in his heart. at crotona, to which place he next took the word of god, there was another young man named guy, who, moved by his preaching, had invited him to dinner: "this young man," said francis, "will enter our militia to-day, and will sanctify himself in this town." he was the oldest of his family, brought up in study and in virtue, and the excellence of his conduct exceeded even that of his education. he frequented the churches and the sacraments, he gave great alms, and visited the sick to assist them; he wore a hair-shirt, and chastised his body severely, to enable him to preserve his virginal purity. he had made a vow to do this. after the dinner, he knelt down and petitioned for the habit of a friar minor, which he received in the principal church of the town, in the presence of a numerous concourse of people, after having first fulfilled two conditions which the father had prescribed for him: the first was, to give to the poor all that he had inherited by his right of primogeniture; the second was, to renounce all the rest of his fortune. it was in the same town that he lived a most holy life, as had been foretold, honored by many miracles; now by permission of the holy see, he is publicly invoked. the love of prayer and retirement made francis wish to find in the neighborhood of crotona a fit place for building a house suitable for the education of his novices. guy pointed one out to him in the valley, near a place called celles. this location greatly pleased him, because it was solitary; and by the aid of some pious persons, he built a very poor dwelling, which he soon filled with novices, and where he received the celebrated brother elias, of whom we shall have much to say hereafter. having spent nearly two months in preaching at crotona, and in forming his novices at the convent of celles, he was inspired to pass over to a desert island in the middle of the lake of perugia. lent was drawing near. he recommended the care of the house to sylvester, without letting him know what his own intention was; and on ash-wednesday he caused himself to be taken to the island by a boatman, having with him only two loaves of bread. the boatman was a worthy man and his friend. he begged him not to tell any one where he was, and only to come to him on the wednesday of holy-week, to take him back to the shore. having made himself there a sort of hut in one of the thickets, to preserve himself from the cold, he had his intercourse with god alone during two and forty days; and his fast was so rigorous, that of the two loaves he brought with him he only ate half a one.--in ecclesiastical history we meet with examples of these miraculous fasts, of which the holy fathers have had an assured knowledge, and which the weakness of human nature was enabled to sustain by virtue of the spirit of god, which supported them. the fruit which they were to derive from it, was to animate the faithful to keep, with as much exactness as was in their power, the fasts prescribed by the church, and particularly the fast of lent, which many principal motives of religion render so venerable. on wednesday in holy-week, the boatman went to fetch francis and bring him back to crotona. on the passage the saint stilled a storm, by making the sign of the cross on the waves; and as soon as he had landed he went to the convent at celles, where he passed the remainder of the holy-week with his brethren. his confidant did not think it necessary to keep the secret of the marvellous fast. the rumor spread, and many persons went to the island to see and venerate the hut in which he had lived. the miracles which were wrought there by the merits of the saint, induced some persons to build there; and gradually a small town arose, where later a church was built, with a convent of his order, near a spring at which he had drunk; sick were afterwards cured there. after the easter solemnities, he placed a superior in the convent; then having tenderly embraced the religious, he made the sign of the cross on them, and separated himself from them to go to arezzo. this town was at that time greatly agitated by internal dissensions, which were likely to bring on its entire ruin. francis being lodged in the suburbs, where he had been hospitably received, saw over the town, with the penetrating sight which the almighty had given him, devils who excited the citizens to massacre each other, and who appeared to be transported with joy. to put these evil spirits to flight, he sent sylvester, as his herald, and gave him this command: "go to the gate of the town, and standing before it, order the devils, in the name of the almighty god, and in virtue of obedience, instantly to retire." sylvester, who was a man of extraordinary simplicity, praising god beforehand for what was about to happen, went as fast as possible, and cried out with all his might: "all you devils who are here, begone, go far from hence. it is in the name of god and of his servant, francis, that i call upon you to go." at this very moment the citizens, who were on the point of flying to arms, came to an understanding on the points which were in dispute, and peace was restored to the town. on which st. bonaventure remarks, that the obedience and humility of francis had obtained for him that absolute power over the proud spirits who fear and fly from the sublime virtue of the humble. it became known in arezzo who the author was of so sudden a reconciliation, because the words which had been spoken by sylvester had been heard. francis was sought for and brought into the town in a sort of triumph, notwithstanding the efforts he made to escape from this honor. he preached in the great square on the love of peace, and on the means of preserving it; pointing out to them that dissensions and quarrels came from, and are promoted by, the evil spirit. the magistrates entertained him at the town-house, and had a convent built for his order according to his wishes, that is to say, according to holy poverty; in which he placed some worthy subjects who had presented themselves to him. a child was brought to him who was quite distorted; he took it into his arms, and it forthwith became straight. this miracle, and several others which he performed during his stay, proved that god had given him as much power over bodily complaints as over the evil spirits. from arrezo he bent his steps to florence, preaching with great success throughout the route. the lords of ganghereto received him with great respect, and were so pleased with the holiness of his life, that they begged his acceptance of a field and a small wood for the service of his religious. he set up a hut there, where his infirmities compelled him to remain some time. after preaching and prayer, to which he daily gave some time, one after the other, he employed himself in building a small wall round a spring of water which he got miraculously, and which still flows, the water of which god was pleased to render salutary. as soon as his health was in some degree restored, he continued his way towards florence, where he went to lodge in the hospital. the following day he preached in the town, and was listened to as a saint. they gave him a small dwelling near the church of st. gall, about five hundred paces from the city, in which he received several novices, who rendered themselves illustrious by their exalted virtues; among whom john parent is particularly noticed, who was a native of carmignano, near pistoria. his conversion was attributable to a very peculiar circumstance. as he was walking one evening in the environs of the town, he saw a swineherd who was endeavoring to drive his pigs into a stable, and who, being in a great passion because, instead of going in, they dispersed themselves in all directions, called out to them in his anger: "swine, get into this stable as judges get into hell." he had scarcely said the words, when these animals went quietly in. that which might have appeared to this magistrate nothing but an impertinence, struck him, and made so strong an impression upon him, that, having seriously reflected on the dangers incurred by a judge (which are indeed very great) as to salvation, he threw up his magistracy, and retired to florence. there he saw francis, examined his conduct, admired his virtues, and felt himself called by god to imitate him. an only son of his had a similar vocation. the father and the son divided their all among the poor, and became disciples of the saint, whose prophecy began thus to be fulfilled: that the wise and learned of the world would enter into his order. such a conversion sets before us this important truth: that the spirit breatheth where he will; that the lord gives his grace sometimes to what is most common, most simple, and even most base, according to the notions of the world; that it is necessary to be attentive, that we may not receive the grace of god in vain; and that, little as it may seem at first, by being carefully attended to, it may have the most beneficial results. not to be thankful for it, to neglect it, to resist it, is a heavy loss. while francis was at st. gall, he foretold a thing which the event justified a few years afterwards. three men at florence brought each a child to receive his blessing. as soon as he was apprised of it, he went into the garden and gathered five figs, then he came in, and gave one to the first of the children, one to the second, and three to the third, to whom he addressed the following words: "you will be my dear child." that one, when he had attained the proper age, took the habit of the friars minor, and was called brother angel, which he deserved by his angelic life, which was the fruit of his great devotion to the blessed virgin, from whom he received very marked favors. from the month of october, , to the beginning of , the man of god visited the towns of pescia, pisa, san miniato, sarthiano, cetona, and other places in tuscany, where he made many wonderful conversions, and left some of his brethren to continue the work of god. we shall relate, at the end of his life, the great honors which were publicly shown him,--honors which he received with the greatest humility, and yet with the most generous sentiments. the brethren whom he had dispersed in the other provinces of italy, and who partook of his apostolic spirit, labored on their part with great zeal and success. they founded many establishments, and formed many disciples, whom they sent to the holy founder in order to receive the habit of the order from him. they mention particularly what happened at bologna to bernard de quintavalle. as soon as he made his appearance, his extraordinary and very poor habit made him looked upon as a person not worthy of notice. he went to the great square in order to preach the truth of salvation, and he went there several times without having collected an audience. children and idle people surrounded him; some pulled him by the hood, others threw mud and stones at him; and he was daily assailed with fresh outrages, which he bore with exemplary patience. a lawyer, having noticed this, made his reflections on it, and it occurred to him that his conduct might be attributed to virtue rather than insensibility. one day, then, he came up to bernard and asked him who he was, and what he had come to do at bologna. "you will know who i am," replied bernard, "if you will take the trouble to read what i now offer you." it was the rule of francis, of which he had a copy, and which he placed in his hand. the lawyer having read it with astonishment, said to those who accompanied him: "i own i have never seen anything so perfect or so heroic as this mode of life. those who ill-use this man are very criminal; he ought, on the contrary, to be loaded with honors, as a special friend of god." then, addressing himself to bernard, he said: "if you will follow me, i will give you a place in which you may serve the lord." bernard, having accepted the offer, was taken to the house of his benefactor, who received him with affection, and gave him a house, which he furnished with everything necessary, and promised to protect him and his companions. after this, bernard was so highly respected in bologna, that people considered themselves fortunate if they could get near him, touch him, or even see him. this truly humble man, mortified at the honor which was shown him, went to francis, and said, "my father, all is in good order at bologna. but send any other religious thither rather than me, for i have no longer any hopes of being useful there: it is even to be feared that i may lose many graces on account of the great honors i receive." this prudent mistrust of himself was as pleasing to the holy father as the affection of the bolognese, to which he responded by sending them several of his disciples, who subsequently spread the order throughout all romagna. the holy patriarch returned some time before lent to st. mary of the angels, where his first care was to examine rigidly whether in his evangelical progress some worldly dust might not have adhered to him in consequence of his communications with seculars; and in those instances in which the extreme delicacy of his conscience gave him room for self-reproach, he purified himself by very severe penitential observances. he then applied himself carefully to the formation of the novices, whom he had collected from various places, and he preached during the lent at assisi. his discourses, backed by his example, and his prayers and exhortations, animated by an ardent zeal, were so efficacious, that in the town and county of assisi a very great number of persons was converted, and the fire of divine love was kindled in every heart. "then," says st. bonaventure, using the words of the holy scriptures, "the vine of the lord spread its branches and bore flowers of a most agreeable odor, and produced fruits of glory in abundance." there were many young girls who made vows of perpetual virginity; amongst whom, says the same holy doctor, the blessed clare appeared as the most beautiful plant in the garden of the celestial spouse, and as a star more brilliant than all the others. this illustrious maiden was the daughter of a rich and noble family of assisi. the cavaliere favorine, or favarone, her father, was descended from the ancient and powerful houses of scifi and fiumi. her mother, of equal high birth and exalted piety, was called hortulana. she had the talent of joining the care of her household to the practice of good works, and to regulate her time so well, that she found enough in which to visit, with the consent of her husband, many holy places: she even made a pilgrimage to the holy land. if this practice is no longer usual in these days, particularly as regards distant countries, it arises from the circumstances of the times being very different, and from there having been a great change in manners. but christian piety does not permit us altogether to condemn (independently of abuses) voyages or journeys of devotion, since they are sanctioned by the examples of the saints, have been approved by the fathers of the church, and since at one time they were directed as sacramental penances for certain sinners. hortulana had three daughters, clare, agnes, beatrix. being about to be confined of the first, and praying to god before a crucifix in a church for a safe delivery, she heard a voice, which said to her: "woman, fear not, thou wilt bring forth, without danger, a light which will illuminate a vast space." this was the reason she gave the name of clare to the daughter to whom she gave birth, in the hopes of seeing the accomplishment of what it might signify. indeed, from her earliest years, her virtue shone as an aurora, the prognostication of a fine day. she received with docility the instructions of her mother, and her whole conduct was the fruit thereof; the exercise of prayer became familiar to her; she every day recited the lord's prayer a number of times, which she marked with small stones, in order to be exact in the daily number she had assigned for herself. in that she resembled the solitary of the desert of seethe, who kept an account of the number of his prayers, offering them to god three hundred times each day. naturally tender and compassionate to the poor, she aided them voluntarily, and the opulence of her family enabled her to assist them abundantly. but, in order to render her charities more agreeable to god, she sent to the poor, by confidential persons, the nicest eatables which were served to herself. the love of god, with which these holy practices inflamed her heart, inspired her with a hatred of her own body, and showed her the vanity of all the things of this world. under her own costly dresses, which her situation in society obliged her to wear, she constantly had a hair-shirt; and she cleverly refused a proposal of marriage which her parents wished her to accept, recommending to god her virginity, which she intended to preserve in entire purity. although she was at that time confined in the bosom of her family, and solely intent on sanctifying herself in secret before the eyes of god, her virtue became the subject of admiration, without her being conscious of it, and drew down upon her the esteem and praise of the whole town. the great celebrity which the sanctity of francis gained in the world, could not be unknown to young clare.--aware that this wonderful man renewed a perfection on the earth which was almost forgotten, she wished much to see him and to have conversations with him. francis also, having heard the reputation of clare's virtues, had an equal desire to communicate with her, that he might tear her from the world and present her to jesus christ. they saw and visited each other several times. clare went to st. mary of the angels with a virtuous lady, a relation of hers, whose name was bona guelfucci; francis also came to see her, but always taking the necessary precautions to have the pious secret kept. she placed herself entirely under his guidance, and he soon persuaded her to consecrate herself to god. an interior view of eternal happiness inspired her with such contempt for the vanities of the world, and filled her heart with such divine love, that she had a complete loathing for finery, which it was not as yet permitted her to throw aside; and from that time she entered into engagements to live in a state of perpetual virginity. the holy director did not choose that so pure a soul should continue longer exposed to the contagion of the world. she had herself come to him some days before palm-sunday to hasten the execution of her intention; he told her to assist at the ceremony of the delivery of palms dressed in her usual ornaments, to leave assisi the following night, as our blessed saviour had left jerusalem to suffer on mount calvary, and to come to the church of st. mary of the angels, where she would exchange her worldly ornaments for a penitential habit, and the vain joys of the world for holy lamentations over the passion of jesus christ. on the th of march, being palm-sunday, clare, magnificently dressed, went with other ladies to the cathedral church, and as she remained in her place out of bashfulness while the others crowded forward to receive the palms, the bishop came down from the altar, and carried a palm branch to her, as a symbol of the victory she was about to gain over the world. the following night, accompanied as propriety required, she arranged her flight as her spiritual father had directed, and according to the earnest wish of her soul. not being able to get out by the front door, of which she had not the key, she had the courage and strength to break open a small door which had been blocked up with stones and wood, and she repaired to the church, where francis and his brethren, who were saying their matins, received her with great solemnity, bearing lighted tapers in their hands. they cut off her hair before the altar, and after she had taken off her ornaments with the help of the females who accompanied her, she received the penitential habit, consecrating her virginity to jesus christ, under the protection of the queen of virgins, while the religious chanted hymns and canticles. it was a touching scene to see a young noble lady, only eighteen years of age, in solitude, in the middle of the night, renounce all the advantages and allurements of the world, put on sackcloth and a cord, and devote herself to a rigorous system of penitential exercises, solely for the love of god. similar sacrifices can only be made by a supernatural virtue; they prove that the religion which inspires them is divine; and justly does st. ambrose consider them to be far above the most heroical pagan virtues. it must be remarked, moreover, that the church of st. mary of the angels, which was the cradle of the order of the poor evangelical brethren which francis had just established, was also the place where clare made profession of the same poverty, that she subsequently prescribed to the order of women, which she instituted together with the holy patriarch. this gives to the two orders the pleasing consolation of knowing that they belong to the mother of god from their origin, and that she is specially their mother. as soon as the ceremony was over, francis, who was always guided by the spirit of wisdom, took the new bride of jesus christ, followed by her companions, to the monastery of benedictines of st. paul, there to remain until divine providence should provide a dwelling for her. when morning dawned, and her parents learnt what had occurred during the night, they were overwhelmed with grief. they equally disapproved of what clare had done, and of the manner in which she had carried her intention into execution; and they went in great numbers to the monastery of st. paul, to compel her to leave it. at first they spoke to her in mild and friendly terms; they represented to her that she was choosing a vile and contemptible state of life, which was disgraceful to her family, and that there was no precedent in the whole country of such an occurrence. after which they attempted by violence to force her from the monastery; which they might easily have done, because in those times the religious females did not keep strict enclosure, beside which her relations were all military men, accustomed to acts of violence. clare uncovered her head to show them that she was shorn; and she protested, clinging to the altar, that nothing in the world should tear her from jesus christ. either because they had too much respect for religion to venture to violate so holy an asylum, or that god restrained them by his power, they molested her no farther. she had only to resist the fresh efforts they made to induce her to return to her father. but the love of god gave her courage to resist with such determined firmness, that, giving up all hopes of conquering her, they left her in peace. a short time after, francis removed her from the monastery of st. paul to that of st. angelo de panso, of the same order of st. benedict, near assisi, to which she drew her sister agnes. the conformity of their inclinations and manners, which rendered them tenderly united, had made them sensibly feel their separation. clare was greatly grieved that agnes, at so tender an age, should be exposed to the dangers of the world. she prayed fervently to the almighty to cause her sister to feel the sweets of his grace, so that she might grow disgusted with the world, and become her companion in the service of jesus christ. her prayer was soon favorably heard, for, a fortnight after her consecration, agnes came to her, and declared that she was decided to give herself wholly to god. "i return him thanks," replied clare, "for that he has thus relieved me from the uneasiness i was in on your account." the indignation of the family was extreme, when it became known that one sister had followed the other. on the morrow, twelve of its principal members hastened to the monastery of st. angelo. at first they feigned to have come in a peaceful mood; but, having been admitted, they turned to agnes, for they had no longer any hopes of clare, and said: "what business have you here? come immediately home with us." she replied that she did not choose to leave her sister, when one of the knights, forgetting himself altogether, attacked her furiously, struck her with his fist, kicked her, pulled her down by the hair, and the others carried her off in their arms. all that this innocent lamb could do, thus torn by the wolves, was to cry out: "my dear sister, come to my aid; do not let them separate me from jesus christ." clare could give her no assistance, but by praying to god to render her steadfast, and to check the violence of her ravishers. this prayer was followed by a miraculous effect, similar to what the church records in the life of the illustrious virgin and martyr, st. lucia. as the relations of agnes dragged her down the mountain, tearing her clothes, and scattering her hair along the road, because she continued violently to resist, she became suddenly so heavy, that they were unable to raise her from the ground, even with the help of persons who flocked from the fields and the vineyards. they were blind to the finger of god in so extraordinary an event, and they even made a jest of it; for ill-disposed persons, like the pharisees of the gospel, do not submit to the evidence of miracles, but carry their impiety to the length of turning all miracles into ridicule. the one which god was pleased to perform in the person of agnes, threw her uncle, whose name was monaldi, into such a rage, that he raised his arm to strike her in such a manner as would have killed her, if the divine power had not arrested the blow by bringing such an excessive pain into the limb as to disable it; this pain lasted a considerable time. this is a grand lesson for those parents who prevent their children from consecrating themselves to god in a religious state. if they do not experience in this world the effects of his anger, they ought to fear the consequences of the anathema in the next with which the council of trent menaces, not only them, but those also who compel their children to embrace a religious state. clare came to the field of battle, where she found her sister half dead. she entreated the relations to retire and to leave her in her care, which they regrettingly did. agnes then rose with great ease, glad to have had a share in the cross of jesus christ. she returned to the monastery with her sister, to consecrate herself to god under the direction of francis, who cut off her hair with his own hands, and instructed her in the duties of the state she was about to enter. clare, not having her mind quite at ease in the monastery of st. angelo, removed to the house which adjoined the church of st. damian, the first of the three which he had repaired, and where he had foretold that there would be one day a monastery of poor females, who should lead a sanctified life, and whose reputation would cause our heavenly father to be glorified. clare had scarcely fixed herself there, when the fame of her sanctity spread all around, and produced wonderful effects. the influence of grace was so great, that there were many persons of all sexes and all ages, of all states of life, nobles and rich, who took to a religious life. they mutually incited each other in families, as st. jerome tells us that it occurred in all africa, when the illustrious virgin, demetrias, moved by the exhortation of st. augustine, took the holy veil. it was even seen that married persons separated by mutual consent, and entered separate convents: and those who could not do this, strove to sanctify themselves in the world. the virtues of the holy spouse of jesus christ, as a precious perfume, attracted pure and innocent souls, who made the house of st. damian a numerous community, and the cradle of the order of the poor clares, or poor ladies, the second of the three orders which were established by st. francis. he appointed clare abbess of st. damian, although her humility made her wish to be the servant of the others, and he only overcame her repugnance by enforcing that obedience which she had promised him. it was there that this holy abbess was enclosed during a period of forty-two years in the practice of the most eminent perfection, and which we shall have an opportunity of referring to, when we come to speak of her rule. after francis had regulated the spiritual exercises of these nuns, provided for the enclosure, and placed the house in good order, he turned in his mind things personal to himself, as to what should be his future way of life. in order to come to a decision, he consulted those of his brethren with whom he was in the habit of having familiar intercourse, and proposed to them his difficulties as follows: "my brethren, what do you advise me? which of the two do you think best: that i shall give myself to prayer, or that i shall go forth to preach? to me it seems that prayer is what is most advantageous to me, for i am a simple person, who am not a good speaker, and i have received the gift of prayer, rather than that of speech: moreover, we gain much by prayer; it is the source of graces; but, in preaching, we only distribute to others what god has communicated. prayer purifies the heart and the affections; it unites us to the sole true and sovereign good, and strengthens us in virtue. preaching renders the feet of the spiritual man dusty; it is an employment which dissipates and distracts, and which causes regular discipline to be relaxed. in fine, in prayer we speak to god, and we listen to him; we converse with the angels, as if we lived an evangelic life. in preaching we must have much condescension towards men, and, living with them, we must hear and see, speak and think, in some measure as they do, in a human way. but there is one thing which seems to prevail over all this before god, which is, that the only son, who is in the bosom of his father, and is the sovereign wisdom, came down from heaven to save souls, to instruct mankind by his example and by his word, to redeem them by his blood, and to make of this precious blood a bath and a celestial beverage: all that he had he gave up liberally and without reserve for our salvation. now, having bound ourselves to do all things according to the model given us in his person, it seems more in conformity to the will of god, that i should give up my own repose in order to labor for the benefit of others." after all these reflections, he continued in an anxious state of uncertainty as to the course he ought to take; and this man, who had wonderful knowledge through the spirit of prophecy, had no light thrown on his doubts by prayer: god permitting at that time that he should not be sensible to the evident proofs he had, that he was called to the apostolic life. we have already seen that powerful attractions to a contemplative life had given rise to similar difficulties arising in his mind. as he wished in all things to act faithfully and perfectly, his principal care was to apply himself to the virtues which he knew, by the inspiration of the holy spirit, to be most agreeable to god. st. bonaventure says that this was the ground of his doubt, and he gives two reasons why god permitted that the saint should not have been able to solve the difficulty, the solution of which appeared so easy. the first is, in order that the heavenly oracles which had announced that francis was destined to preach the gospel, should give a more exalted idea of the merits of that ministry; to this may be added, that it was of consequence that it should be known with certainty that the holy founder and his disciples were destined by heaven to labor for the salvation of souls, since in after times it has been found that some of their adversaries have contested it. secondly, the doubt of the servant of god was useful in preserving his humility and rendering it still greater. in the capacity of a friar minor, he was not ashamed of seeking the advice of the least of his brethren, he who had been taught such elevated things from the sovereign master. it was likewise one of his maxims throughout his whole life, and of the principles of the sacred philosophy, of which he made profession, to address himself to the simple as well as to the learned, to the imperfect as well as to the perfect, to the young as to the old, with the ardent desire to find from intercourse with them in what way and by what means he could best serve god according to his good pleasure, and raise himself to the greatest perfection. finally, we must not be surprised that he entreated god to grant him additional proofs of his vocation, after having received such convincing ones by revelations, by miracles, and from the mouth of the vicar of jesus christ; when we see in the sacred scriptures, that gideon, having been chosen by god to fight the enemies of his people, and this choice having been manifested by the apparition of an angel, by a miracle and by a revelation, he nevertheless begged the lord to give other miraculous signs, in order to be still further assured of it, and his prayer was granted. would to god, that, without asking for miracles and without expecting them, all vocations, particularly those for the holy ministries, and other affairs of conscience, were examined on such sound principles, and weighed by means as likely to deserve the light of heaven. in order to know how finally to decide, francis sent two of his religious, philip and masse, to brother sylvester the priest, who was then on the mountain near assisi, continually intent on prayer, begging him to consult the lord on the subject of his doubt, and to let him know the result. he made a similar application to clare, recommending her to put the same question to her sisters, and particularly to the one who should appear to her to be the most pure and most single-minded. the venerable priest and the consecrated virgin gave similar answers, and pronounced that it was the will of god that francis should go forth to preach. when the two religious returned, francis received them with great respect and affection; he washed their feet, embraced them, and gave them their meal. he then took them into the wood, where he knelt bareheaded and inclined, with his hands crossed upon his breast, and said to them: "now tell me what my lord jesus christ commands me to do?" "my very dear brother, and my father," replied masse, "sylvester and clare received precisely the same answer from our lord jesus christ, which is, that you set out to preach; because it is not for your salvation alone that he called you, but for the salvation of others also; and for them he will put his words into your mouth." then francis, moved by the spirit of god, as the prophets had been, and inflamed by the fire of charity, rose up, saying: "let us then go in the name of the lord;" and he set out with two of his companions, masse of marignan, and angelo of rieti. he walked so fast to obey the words of heaven, that it was easy to see that the lord acted upon him, and that he had received fresh strength from above for the ministry of preaching. his companions were the more convinced of this by the very extraordinary wonders which were worked by him on the route. the apostolical preacher went first to bevagna, where he pronounced an excellent discourse on the love of god; after which, in presence of the whole audience, he restored the sight of a blind girl by putting spittle three times on her eyes in the name of the blessed trinity. this miracle had a salutary effect on a number of sinners, who were converted; and many of them joined him who was the instrument of the divine power. so many souls gained to jesus christ in one place, stimulated him to carry the faith into the levant. the triumph of martyrs, whose charity could not be extinguished by the violence of persecutions, excited in him a holy jealousy. burning with similar fire, he wished to offer himself, as they had done, a sacrifice, in order to mark his gratitude in some measure, by the effusion of his blood, for the goodness of jesus christ, who vouchsafed to die for our salvation, thus the better to excite others to love him. but he desired to have the sanction of the sovereign pontiff for this undertaking, and therefore bent his steps to rome, preaching as he went the truths of salvation, which god confirmed by miracles. arrived at rome, he sought an audience with the pope. innocent iii still filled the papal throne; he first communicated to him the wonderful extension of his order, the holy lives of his brethren, and the design which god had to bring about a reformation of morals in the world, which was growing old, and was visibly in a state of decay. then he disclosed the project he had of transporting himself to the lands of the mahometans and tartars, to endeavor to give them some knowledge of the gospel. it must be remarked, that the saint attributed to the world that decay which is the effect of old age, but he did not extend this to the church, because he well knew that, although old, she was not infirm. st. augustine says, that her old age is always young, fresh, vigorous, and that she bears fruit in abundance. the pope, who was very religious, was highly gratified at the fortunate success which he now learnt had attended the saint's labors; he willingly granted the servant of god leave to preach to the infidels, and he affectionately gave him his blessing. two sermons which francis preached at rome procured him two disciples, zachary and william; the one was a roman, the other was an englishman. john de capella, of whom we have before spoken, having left the order about this time, and having had a similar end to that of judas, william was substituted for him, as st. mathias had filled the place of the traitor in the apostolate, and william was afterwards always considered as the twelfth of the first companions of the patriarch. a roman widow, very noble and very rich, called jacqueline de settesoli, having heard the saint preach, was very anxious to have an interview with him. he agreed to it, although reluctantly, and he gave her such salutary instructions, that she committed the care of all her affairs to her two sons, who were afterwards senators, in order that she might apply herself to the sanctification of her soul, employing the gift of tears which god had given her, to weep incessantly the neglects of her past life. this lady and st. clare were the only two persons of the female sex with whom the servant of jesus christ had any intimate relations on the subject of their salvation; which ought to serve as a caution for this sort of direction lest it be too greatly multiplied,--and be unholy. as there is no affection more solid or more effective than that which is grounded on charity, the pious widow rendered to francis and his brethren all the good offices in her power. when they came to rome she provided them with lodgings, she fed them, clothed them, and assisted them in their sicknesses with the tenderness of a mother. it was she who procured for them from the benedictines of the abbey of st. cosmas beyond the tiber, a refuge in the hospital of st. blaise; and this hospital with its church was entirely ceded to them by the same religious order in the year , at the request of pope gregory ix; it is to this day the convent of st. francis of ripa. thus the friars minor are indebted to the children of st. benedict for the first establishment they had in rome, as well as for that of st. mary of the angels, or portiuncula, the first of the whole order. francis, having terminated his business at rome, returned to st. mary of the angels, where he communicated to his brethren his intention of proceeding to the levant. he exhorted them in the strongest terms to perfect themselves in the exercises of a religious life; he left them peter of catania as superior during his absence, and set out with one companion for ascoli. at that place they were extremely anxious to see and hear this admirable man, who was everywhere looked upon as a saint: he had scarcely arrived in the town when all flocked to him; whichever way he went, a crowd followed him; every one was anxious to get near him, and they pressed upon each other in order only to be able to touch his miserable habit. his presence and preaching in this town procured him thirty disciples, some priests, and some laymen, whom he placed in different houses of the order. the desire of martyrdom which he aspired to from the infidels, did not admit of a longer stay at ascoli; he therefore made for the sea-side, and embarked on board a vessel which was bound for syria. but on the passage the winds became adverse, and they were obliged to come to anchor off sclavonia, where he remained some days in hopes of finding some other vessel bound to the levant. not finding any, and perceiving that his intention had been foiled, he applied to some seamen who were about to sail to ancona, to take him on board their vessel for the love of god. they refused obstinately to do so, because he had no money wherewith to pay his passage; notwithstanding this, the holy man contrived to slip secretly on board with his companion. an unknown person came on board the vessel and brought provisions with him, saying to one of the passengers: "worthy man, i confide these provisions to you, for the use of two poor religious who are secreted in the vessel; take care of them, and give food to them when required." who could this charitable purveyor be? there is reason to think, with st. bonaventure, that he was sent by god to the assistance of these two poor religious, who were only poor for love of him. stormy weather rendered the passage disastrous; they could neither carry sail, nor return to land. all the sailors' provisions were expended: there was nothing left but the provisions put on board for the two religious. divine providence was pleased to multiply these, inasmuch that they sufficed for all who were in the vessel for several days, during which they were still at sea, before they reached ancona. the sailors, astonished at this miracle, were convinced that the poor man whom they had refused to receive on board, had, by his merits, saved their lives, and they returned thanks to god for his mercy. after having landed, francis went to several places, spreading the word of god as a precious seed, which produced an ample harvest. many came to see him from afar, so greatly had his reputation been disseminated. a celebrated poet came amongst others, having heard his entire contempt for the things of this world spoken of. he was of the class of persons who were called in provence _troubadours_, who invented fables, and composed different pieces of poetry, which were sung in the houses of the nobles. the art of versifying in the vulgar tongue was uncommon in those times, and was only practised by the nobility. the italians imitated the people of provence, and translated into their language the best compositions of the _troubadours_. the poet of whom we are speaking excelled in this art, and the emperor frederic ii had crowned him as the prince of poets, which caused him to be usually called "the king of verse." coming then to see francis, he passed through the borough town of san severino, and entered the church of a monastery, where the servant of god was preaching on the mystery of the cross. he listened to him at first without knowing him; but god disclosed francis to him in the course of the sermon, by two shining swords pierced through the saint cross-wise, one from the head to the feet, and the other from one hand to the other through the breast; from this he became aware that the preacher was the holy man of whom so much was spoken. the first impression which the vision made upon him was, that he ought to lead a better life; but the words of the preacher filled him with such compunction, that he felt as if he had been pierced by the sword of the spirit which came out of his mouth. he went after the sermon to renounce in francis' hands all the vanities of the world, and to embrace his institute. francis, seeing him pass so perfectly from the agitations of the world to the peace of jesus christ, gave him the name of brother pacificus. st. bonaventure adds, that he was a man of so much holiness that he received the additional favor from god of seeing on the forehead of his blessed father a great t, painted in a variety of colors, which threw a remarkable softness on his countenance. this letter, which represents the cross, showed the interior comeliness which the love of the cross gave to his soul. watchfulness and affection inspired the father with the wish to return to tuscany, to visit the establishments he had founded there the preceding year, and to learn from his own inspection how they progressed in the ways of god. the family of the ubaldini, which is among the most illustrious of florence, gave him a convent which had been built and founded by their ancestors for the religious of the order of st. basil, in the sixth or seventh century, some leagues from the city, in the middle of a wood, and which had been since occupied by hermits. he put some of his companions into it, and returned towards the end of october to st. mary of the angels, preaching, as was his custom, in all the places he passed through. the repose he allowed himself after so much fatigue, was that of applying himself to the instruction of his disciples, and addressing discourses to them full of wisdom. at the end of this year he had an attack of ague, which became quartan, and reduced him to a great state of languor. the bishop of assisi, who was a most charitable prelate, and his particular friend, having heard of his illness, came to see him, and, notwithstanding his resistance, had him removed to his palace, where he attended to his recovery with the charity of a pastor and the affection of a parent. his religious came to him there to seek the light they required. they also brought to him such postulants as presented themselves, and those who were recommended to him (at times there were thirty or forty) by the missionaries he had in various parts of italy; for none were then received who had not been examined by the founder himself. a young gentleman from lucca came with tears in his eyes, to entreat him to give him the habit. "unfortunate young man," said the saint, "why do you attempt to show by your eyes what is not in your heart? you have, without due consideration, formed a plan which you will soon as lightly give up." in fact, a few days after he went home with two of his relations who had come in search of him, and he thought no more of becoming a religious. the servant of god, having regained some portion of strength during his residence with the bishop, by relaxing in the severity of his abstinences, which were extreme, became irritated with his own body, and was inflamed with the desire of humbling himself: "it is not right," he said, "that people should think me austere, while i am pampered in secret." upon which the spirit of humility suggested to him an act, which st. bonaventure records, not as an example, but as a prodigy, to be compared only with those extraordinary things which god commanded the prophets to perform. he rose, and accompanied by a great number of his brethren, he went to the great square of assisi, assembled the people, and led them to the cathedral. then he caused himself to be dragged by the vicar of his convent from the church to the place of execution, stripped, and with a cord round his neck, as the prophet isaias. there, weak as he still was, and shivering with cold, he addressed the assembly with surprising energy, and said in a loud voice: "i assure that i ought not to receive honor as if i were a spiritual man. i am a carnal, sensual, and greedy man, whom you ought thoroughly to despise." the hearers, who knew the austerity of his life, struck with such a scene, admitted that this extraordinary humility was more to be admired than imitated. nevertheless, the holy doctor, whom we have just named, finds in this some wholesome instruction. it teaches us, he says, that, in the practice of virtue, we must avoid with great care everything having any tendency to hypocrisy, repress the slightest approaches of vanity, and have a sovereign contempt for praise. the humble francis, who strenuously labored for his interior sanctification, did many things with a view of rendering himself contemptible, endeavoring, above all, to prevent men from being deceived in the idea they might have formed of his sanctity. this is the characteristic of true devotion; it has no borrowed exterior; it is, or it endeavors to be, all that it seems. the religious whom francis had sent into lombardy, fulfilled the mission in an admirable manner. they acquired so much esteem at milan by their preaching and by their good example, that the archbishop of that city, henry satalas, gave them an establishment there, which became considerable later, by the liberality of the milanese. one of the fruits of their apostolic labors was the vocation of a young man of rank, who was rich and talented, and who solicited the habit of the order. upon their acquainting him that, to become a friar minor, it was requisite to renounce all temporal goods, he immediately disposed of all of which he was then master, and distributed the greater part to the poor, reserving the remainder to pay the expenses of his journey to assisi, where he was told that it was necessary to present himself to the founder, who alone had the power of receiving novices. he induced some of his relations and friends to accompany him, and took with him a considerable number of servants; one of the religious was also requested to go with them, in order to introduce the postulant, and favor his reception. when they arrived at st. mary of the angels, francis, seeing such a number of persons, and such an appearance of vanity, asked the religious who was with them, who these lords were, and what they wanted? he answered: "my father, this is a young man, learned and rich, of one of the first families of milan, who wishes to become your disciple." francis replied, before them all, smiling: "this young man does not seem to me to be fit for our order, for, when people come with so much pomp, which is the mark of a proud spirit, to embrace a state of poverty, we are led to believe that they have not yet sufficient contempt and aversion for the world, and that they are not prepared wholly to relinquish it. but i will consult our brethren on the subject." he assembled them all, and asked their opinion, which was not to receive him, because he had still a fund of pride, and because the love for the splendor of the world was not yet eradicated from his heart. the young man who was present burst into tears; and francis, who was moved with compassion, said: "my brethren, will you receive him if he consents to serve in the kitchen? it will be the means of inducing him to renounce the vanities of the world." they assented on this condition, which the postulant willingly agreed to, protesting that he was prepared to do anything that was required of him. the father embraced him, after having returned to those who accompanied him his money and his equipage. he sent him to the hospital of st. blasius of rome, there to act as cook; and the young novice attained to such perfection in that humble employment, that francis judged him worthy to be placed over others, and made him superior of the same place. the line adopted in respect to this young man shows evidently, that for the religious profession neither birth, nor riches, nor talents, are to be heeded, but that the essential qualifications principally to be considered for this holy state, are, to be sincerely prepared to die to the world and to self. at the beginning of the year , the fever of which francis had been cured at the bishop's palace of assisi recurred; sometimes it was tertian, sometimes quartan, but always with great severity. he bore the suffering with great equanimity, because of the hatred he felt for his body, and from the patience taught by jesus christ. the violence of the fever which burned his body, was, in his opinion, a lesser evil than the fire of temptations which inflame the soul; his sufferings appeared to him a gain. all the saints have had a like way of thinking, and the principles of christianity admit of no other. the only uneasiness the sickness gave to the holy man, was its having prevented him putting in force the intentions he had in view for the salvation of souls. but charity, which is ever active, suggested to him to exhort the faithful in writing, as he could not do so in person; he therefore addressed them a short letter, couched in the following terms:-- "o how happy are all those who love god, and who worthily practise all that jesus christ has taught in his holy gospel. thou shalt love the lord thy god with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and thy neighbor as thyself. let us love and adore god with great purity of mind and heart; for that is what he seeks for above all things. he has said that the true adorers shall adore the father in spirit and in truth, and that they who adore him, must adore him in spirit and truth. i salute you in our lord." this short letter was still fresh from his hand, when an infinity of copies were made of it, so anxious were all people to see anything that came from the hand of so holy a person. in this simple and brief exhortation they admired the candor of his soul and the extent of his charity, and, in reading it, they were moved by a power which penetrated the soul; for the words of the saints have a secret unction which is not found elsewhere. these spiritual services, and others which francis rendered to his neighbor, with the continual instruction he gave to his brethren, were his occupations during his sickness, and until such time as returning health permitted him to do more. he was somewhat better in the spring, as is usually the case with those who have the quartan ague; but his extraordinary austerities had so weakened his constitution, that he never wholly recovered his health, and the remainder of his life was little else than a state of languor. as soon as he could commence travelling, he committed the care of his order to peter of cantania, and set out with bernard of quintavalle and some others, in order to go to morocco, through spain, to preach the gospel to the miramolin and to his subjects, in the hopes of attaining by this means the crown of martyrdom, which was the great object of his wishes. the servant of god did not reach spain till near the end of the year, because he had stopped in various places to preach, to visit the houses of his order, and to receive accounts of others. his whole route was a succession of miracles, and other remarkable things, which contain admirable instructions. at foligno, the sign of the cross which he made on the house of his host, protected it from various accidents, and particularly from fire, which did no damage to that dwelling, although the adjoining houses were three or four times on fire: the flames were even seen to take a contrary direction. at spoleto, knowing that a rich man thought ill of his institute, and refused his brethren alms, he asked him only to give him a loaf; and, having received it, he divided it among his religious, and directed them to say the lord's prayer and the evangelical salutation three times, for the person who had given it. their scanty meal was scarcely finished, when this man came to ask forgiveness for the harshness he had shown them, and he was, after that, the best friend of their convent, so good an idea of their institution had the saint impressed upon him. at terni, the bishop who had listened to one of francis' sermons, ascended the pulpit when he had done, and said to the people:--"my brethren, the lord, who has often enlightened his church by men illustrious for their science, has now sent you this francis whom you have just heard, a poor illiterate man, and contemptible in appearance, in order that he may edify you by his word and his example. the less learned he is, the more does the power of god shine in his person, who chooses those who are foolish according to the views of the world, to confound all worldly wisdom. the care which god takes of our salvation obliges us to honor and glorify him; for he has not done the like to other nations." francis followed the prelate, fell on his knees, kissed his hand, and said:--"my lord, in very truth, no one has ever done me so much honor as i have this day received from you. some attribute to me a sort of sanctity, which noway belongs to me, and which ought to be referred to god alone, the author of every perfect gift. but you, my lord, have wisely separated what is valuable from what is vile, the worthy from the unworthy, the saint from the sinner; giving the glory to god, and not to me, who am but a miserable mortal. it is, indeed, only to god, the king of ages, immortal and invisible, that men should give honor and glory for ever and ever." the bishop, even more pleased with this specimen of his humility than with his preaching, embraced him affectionately. in the same city, by the sign of the cross he rendered some sour wine perfectly good, and that before persons who had tasted it in its acid state. but he performed a much greater miracle, which was universally admired, on a young lad who had been just crushed by the fall of a wall; having had him brought to him, he applied himself to prayer, and, extending himself on the corpse, as the prophet eliseus had done on the child of the sunamite, he restored him to life. in the county of narni, he was lodged in the house of a worthy man who was in great affliction for the death of his brother, who had been drowned, and whose body could not be found, so that it might be buried. after having privately prayed for some time, he showed a spot in the river where he said that the body certainly was at the bottom; it had been stopped there by the entanglement of the clothes. they dived at that place and found the body, which he restored to life in the presence of the whole family. the fever, and a severe stomach complaint, caused him to faint in a hermitage which had been given him near the borough of st. urban, and he asked for some wine to recover from the weakness which had ensued. as there was none to be had there, he had some water brought to him, which he blessed, by making the sign of the cross over it, and it was instantly changed thereby into excellent wine. the little that he took of it renovated him so promptly, that it was a double miracle. upon which st. bonaventure remarks, that this wonderful change is a type of the change he had effected in his heart, in casting off the old man to put on the new. in the city of narni, he cured a man who had lost the use of his limbs for five months from palsy, employing no other remedy than a sign of the cross, which he made over his whole body; this he did at the request of the bishop of the place, and by virtue of the same sign he restored the sight of a blind girl. being at orti, he straightened a child, who was so deformed that its head touched its feet. at san gemini, he prayed, with three of his companions, for the wife of his host, whom the devil had possessed for a long while, and the evil spirit left her. such evident miracles, publicly performed, and in great numbers, gave a wonderful splendor to his sanctity. in the archives of the town of poggibonsi, in tuscany, the act of donation of a house given to him is preserved, which commences thus:--"we cede to a man named francis, whom all the world considers as a saint," etc. the discourses of so holy a man, of one so gifted with the power of miracles, had the greatest effect upon the hearts of his hearers, and made the people very anxious to have houses of his order established among them. he settled some of his religious at foligno, at trevi, at san gemini, at sienna, and in several other places. fresh disciples joined him from all quarters, but he did not receive any until he had strictly examined their vocation. a young gentleman, having heard him preach at monte casale, a town in the appennines, came to acquaint him with the design he had long formed of entering his order. "you must think seriously of it," replied francis; "for the kind of life we lead must appear very hard to those who have been tenderly brought up." the young man answered courageously: "my father, are not you and yours of the same nature as i am, and formed of the same earth? i hope, with god's help, to bear without much inconvenience what my fellow-men can bear so willingly." these ideas were very pleasing to the patriarch, and the postulant was received. it must be admitted that man has resources of strength which he might make use of to imitate the saints in many things, if he were not wanting in exertion and confidence in god. from monte casale francis passed over the appennines, and went through the valley of marecchia to reach monte feltro, or st. leo. he learnt on the road that the lord of that town was about to be knighted at his castle, where he was giving a grand feast, accompanied by games and theatricals, to a numerous assembly of the nobility, among whom was count orlando catanio, lord of chiusi nuovo, and of all the casentino. being near the castle, and hearing the sound of the trumpets, which denoted that the revelry was about to begin, he said to his companions:--"let us go hither also, and let us combat the devil with all our might, who never fails in these rejoicings to lay his snares into which many fall; for it is our duty to labor everywhere and in all places for the salvation of souls." he went up to the castle, and heard the solemn mass with all those who accompanied the new knight. as soon as it was over, he took a position on a height near the church, in order to preach from thence, and the crowd gathered round him to listen. he took the following italian words for his text:--"tanto e il ben che aspetto, che d'ogni pena mi diletto:" which means--"the good which i hope for is so great, that to obtain it all suffering is pleasurable." he proved his text by this passage from st. paul:--"the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come;" by the example of the apostles, who were filled with joy for having been found worthy to suffer for the name of jesus; by the example of the martyrs, who willingly exposed themselves to torments and death, that they might obtain heaven; and, finally by such cogent reasons, so pathetically set forth, that all the auditors admired the doctrine, and felt what he wished to inspire them with. they found in the preacher something divine, which commanded respect, and they fixed their looks upon his countenance as if it had been that of an angel. count orlando, more impressed with what he had heard than the rest, went after the sermon to embrace the preacher, and he entreated him particularly to instruct him in the affairs of his salvation. francis, who, in addition to his ardent zeal, had much discretion and suavity of manner, said:--"count, go now and do honor to your friends whom you have invited, and we will talk of this affair at a more convenient time." the count, complying with this advice, joined the nobility who waited for him, and did not forget to take care of the servants of god. the feast having ended, he returned to the prudent director, with whom he had a lengthened conversation, with which he was so much struck, that in order to have the comfort of seeing familiarly the religious of the institute, he offered francis the mountain of alvernia, with a promise, if he agreed to it, of building there a convent. as this was a lonely place, very fit for contemplation, francis gladly accepted the offer, and promised to send two of his brethren to chiusi, before he should leave italy. he did in fact send them, and the count having received them as angels sent from heaven, he took them to mount alvernia, where they fixed upon a spot which appeared to them an apt location for a church. fifty soldiers who had been brought thither began immediately to fell timber, and a place was cleared, where hutting was set up to lodge the religious, in which they dwelt until the church and convent were built. these are the circumstances under which the friars minor were settled on this mountain, which subsequently became so celebrated in the christian world by the stigmata of st. francis. the place was ceded to them by an authentic document which the count gave them, and which is preserved in the original in the archives of the convent. we shall speak further of this holy place when we come to relate the first visit the saint paid it on his return from spain. he continued his journey through bologna, from whence, after having visited his brethren, he came to imola. he first went to offer his respects to the bishop, and asked permission to preach to his people. "i preach," replied the bishop coldly, "and that is quite enough." francis bowed humbly, and retired; but an hour afterwards he returned, and the bishop, surprised and angered at seeing him again, asked him what he could possibly want? to which he replied, in a tone of sincere humility: "my lord, if a father drives his son out of the house by one door, it is right that the son should return through another." the bishop mollified by this mild address, embraced him with affection, and said: "from henceforth you and your brethren may preach in my diocese. i give you a general leave, it is what your humility has merited." is there anything which can soften minds and obtain favors sooner than this virtue? the humility of francis was accompanied with great courage, which rendered him firm and confident in the most imminent dangers, this was owing to the great confidence he had in god. night overtook him once when he was in company with leo, between lombardy and the trevisan marshes, on a road having on one side the po, one of the most considerable rivers in italy, and on the other a deep morass. leo, much alarmed, exclaimed: "father, pray to god to deliver us from the danger we are in." francis, full of faith, replied: "god can, if it is his good pleasure, give us light to dissipate the darkness of the night." these words were hardly spoken, when they found themselves surrounded by a brilliant light, which not only made the way clear to them, but enabled them to see many things on either side of the way, although the darkness was very dense everywhere else. they pursued their route, singing the glories of god; the celestial torch served them as a guide till they reached the place where they were to be lodged, which was then very far off. this miraculous light was a notification to the saint that it was god's pleasure that he should have a dwelling in the place to which his goodness had led him, and he told this to his companion. the inhabitants made no difficulty in assigning him one, after having heard him preach, and he gave the convent the name of the holy fire, as it is still called. in piedmont, where he was well received, his preaching, with the reputation of his sanctity, confirmed by many miracles, converted a considerable number of persons, and procured him several houses. from thence he went into spain, but the writers of his life have not recorded by what route. now, it is scarcely to be doubted that he went by land, and through france; ancient documents show that he entered spain through navarre, and that he arrived in the year at logrono, a town of old castile, which had formerly belonged to biscay. on the road he came up with a poor and abandoned invalid, for whom he felt so much pity that he directed bernard de quintavalle, one of his companions, to stay with him and take care of him, which bernard willingly undertook to do. at logrono he miraculously cured a young gentleman who was on the point of death; then he went on to burgos, where alphonso ix., (or viii., according to some,) father of blanche queen of france and mother of st. louis, then was. francis presented himself before the king, he showed him the rules of his institute, and entreated him to receive the friars minor into his states. this monarch, who, in addition to his political and military talents, had a great fund of goodness and piety, received the holy man very favorably; he condescended to read the rules, and after having conversed with him for some time, gave him leave to build houses in spain. francis now fixed his thoughts only on advancing towards the sea-side in order to embark for morocco, there to suffer martyrdom, for this was the great object of his wishes. if we only formed our opinion of things by the ordinary rules of prudence, we should be surprised, that a man, visibly sent by god for the institution of a new order of religious, should leave it so short a time after its birth, to seek for death among the infidels. but the saints only thought of following the impulses which the spirit of god suggested to them, with reference to the works which they had commenced by god's order. st. anthony, father of a great number of cenobites, left his monastery, and followed at alexandria certain confessors of the faith; he attended upon them in prison, and exhorted them under torment to procure for himself the palm of martyrdom. st. dominic, animated by a similar spirit, had formed the intention of going among the saracens, only two years after the institution of his order. francis, thus inspired from above, desired to meet death for jesus christ, and left to god the care of his rising family. this disposition, which was the fruit of ardent charity, was very pleasing to god; it entered into the economy of his providence for the salvation of souls and for the aggrandizement of the new order, for the saint did not cease his labors when he took the route which was to lead to martyrdom. nevertheless, god did not choose that his design should be carried into execution; and his will was made known to his servant by a violent illness, which put it out of his power to embark for morocco. francis gave up his wishes, obeying what was thus signified to him. and came to the resolution to return to italy for the guidance of his flock, however, he did not set out till the close of the year. the authors of the order are agreed in saying that he went to visit the tomb of the apostle st. james, at compostella, the capital of galicia, to which place devotion has attracted, for many centuries past, crowds of pilgrims, and that an angel appeared to him there, and assured him that it was god's will that he should return to italy, after having founded some establishments in spain. they also say that he went into portugal, where he raised to life the daughter of his host at guimaraens, a town of the diocese of braganza, which caused him to be spoken of as a saint throughout the whole country; and that he went through nearly the whole of the kingdom of arragon and the adjacent provinces; and, finally, they relate the following most extraordinary circumstance: francis being one evening on the banks of the river orbego, with his companions, where there was no food, a young man of the town of novia overtook them, and carried them over on some horses he had with him, and received them hospitably. the gratitude the saint had was shown by saying: "may the lord reward you for the kindness you have shown us, when he rewards the just." some short time after this, the young man, having gone to rome out of devotion, and having endeavored to put his conscience in a good state, prayed fervently to god, to take him out of this world before he should commit a mortal sin. his prayer was heard; he died. his father desired to have a funeral service said for him, and thirty friars minor attended to it without having been asked; none knew from whence they came, nor whither they afterwards went, which made it thought that the assistance was miraculous; and as it was known what the holy man francis had said to the deceased, it was understood that he had, by this means, procured the reward of the just for him whose hospitality he had received. gonzagues, bishop of mantua, who had been general of the order of st. francis, says, that it is held as certain that st. francis commenced the establishments of gasta, arevalo, avila, madrid, tudela, and caused several other convents to be built. it is easily understood that in the eight or nine months in which he remained in spain after his illness, he arranged much by himself and by his companions; the old inscriptions which are still seen on the tombs of many minors are an additional proof. moreover, it is certain that his holy life and his preaching were of the greatest benefit to souls, and that his order was received in spain with an affection which has passed from age to age, from fathers to sons; so that spain is one of the countries of the world in which we find the greatest veneration for st. francis, and the greatest consideration for the order of friars minor. the same bishop tells us, on the testimony of universal and unvaried tradition, of many miracles performed by the almighty, through the ministry of the holy man. we shall satisfy ourselves by relating one of them, which is warranted by manuscripts and documents. francis was lodged at compostella, at the house of a poor dealer in charcoal, whose name was cotolai, and he often went to pass the night in contemplation on a neighboring mountain. god made known to him, that it was his will that he should build a convent between two valleys, the one of which was commonly called the valley of god, and the other the valley of hell. he knew that this ground belonged to the benedictines of compostella, of the abbey of st. pay, or pelagius, since transferred to that of st. martin; and, bearing in mind the favors which the religious of this holy order had done him in the gifts of st. mary of the angels, and at rome, he called upon the abbot and asked unhesitatingly for permission to build a convent between the two valleys. "what will you give me in payment?" said the abbot. francis replied: "as i am very poor, i have neither money, nor anything else to give you, if you grant me what i ask. yet what will be most precious to me, i will give you in quit rent yearly--a small basket of fish if they can be caught in the river." the abbot who was a very pious man, admiring his simplicity and his confidence, granted him his request on the condition proposed, and an act to that effect was prepared and signed by both. the holy man came to cotolai and told him what had passed between the abbot of st. pay and himself, and added: "my dear host, it is god's will that you should build this convent; therefore prepare yourself for the work." "oh, how shall i be able to do that," answered cotolai, "i who am so poor, and who live by my daily labor?" "take courage," said francis, "take a pickaxe, and go to the spring which is close by; make a hole a little in front of it, and you will find a treasure which will enable you to execute the order of heaven." cotolai, relying on the saint's word, searched as he was bidden, found the treasure, and built the convent, which is known by the name of st. francis to this day. this fact is narrated in an authentic manuscript in the archives of the abbey of st. martin, from whence this is copied; and in two very old inscriptions, one of which is on the tomb of cotolai and his wife, whose name was mary de bicos, and the other over the gate of the church of the convent in which their tomb is. the deed which was executed by francis and the abbot of st. pay, is preserved in the original in the archives of the abbey of st. martin of compostella. the prince of spain, philip the second, saw it in the year , when he was about to embark at corunna, to espouse the queen of england. however, the marvel has nothing in it which should be the cause of much surprise: our saviour, who made st. peter find in the mouth of a fish wherewithal to pay the tribute for his master and himself, could easily cause a treasure of money to be found sufficient to build a house for his faithful servant francis. when the apostolical man had terminated his mission in spain, he went to rejoin bernard de quintavalle, whom he had left on entering it, in charge of the poor sick man, who was perfectly cured. francis came through aragon into catalonia. the magistrates of barcelona, where he stopped for a short time, were so pleased with his poverty, his humility, and his other virtues, that, for the sake of having some religious of his order, they converted the hospital where he was lodged into a convent, the church and cloister of which are still extant, and are venerable from the remembrance of the saint. at san saloni, a small town between barcelona and gerona, an adventure occurred to him which seemed purely accidental, but which god turned to good. as he walked by the side of a vineyard, his companion gathered a bunch or two of grapes to refresh himself. he who had charge of the vineyard, perceiving it, came violently upon the religious, beat him and abused him in no measured terms, and took from him his poor cloak. francis asked to have the cloak back, alleging mildly, that what had been taken had done no injury to the vineyard; and that good feeling required that this assistance should be given to a passer-by who needed it. but, not having succeeded in procuring its restoration, he went to the proprietor of the vineyard, from whom he had no difficulty in getting it back, after having told him what had happened. he then conversed with him on heavenly things with such effect, that the man, devoting himself from that moment to his service, promised to receive hospitably all the friars minor who should pass through san saloni, and furnish them with whatsoever they might require, as far as his means would allow; which he never failed to do as long as he lived. francis, in return, granted him participation in all the spiritual merits of his order, and gave him the name of father of the friars minor. it is from this precedent that the superiors of the order give letters of filiation, as they are called, in virtue of which the holders participate in the merits of all the practices of the community. this is grounded on the communion of saints, one of the articles of the apostolic symbol by which each member of the faithful who is not excommunicated, and principally if he be in a state of grace, participates in the good works of others. besides this general communication, the faithful may assist each other by their prayers, and their own merits, as is done in confraternities and all pious associations. this is the way in which the order of st. francis, and all other religious orders, manifest their gratitude to their benefactors; in this they do that which st. augustine says of the ministers of jesus christ in regard to the faithful who support them; "they give spiritual things, and only receive temporal ones; they give gold, and only receive brass." those who know what the communion of saints is, and who neglect nothing which can contribute to their salvation, have great esteem (as, indeed, they ought) for letters of filiation, and strive to live in a christian-like manner in order to profit by them. from catalonia, francis continued his route through roussillon, and it is believed that he placed some of his religious at perpignan, the capital. he then entered languedoc, which the errors and arms of the albigenses had alike tended to desolate. the catholics at that time enjoyed some calm by the valor of the illustrious simon, count of montfort, who had just overthrown the heretics, principally by the celebrated victory obtained, at muret, over peter, king of aragon, whom ill-understood interests had made protector of the albigenses, to the detriment of religion, and who was killed in that battle. the saintly traveller did not make any stay in languedoc; perhaps because it was the field destined by providence to be cultivated by st. dominic, whose preaching and miracles had made an infinity of conversions, and who was then at carcassonne, where he gave the nuptial benediction to the marriage of amaury de montfort, the son of simon, with the princess beatrice, the daughter of the dauphin, count of viennois. francis arrived at montpellier at the time when they were about to open the council, at which simon of montfort was loaded with praises, and chosen to be possessor of the city of toulouse, and the other conquests of the crusaders; he preached there, and foretold that a convent would be built soon for his brethren at the hospital where he lodged; a prophecy which was fulfilled in the year . his bad health, the fatigues of his journey, and the rigor of the season, had brought him into a state of great languor, and compelled him to stop one day. his malady gave him a disgust for all sorts of food, and he thought that he could only relish some wild fowl. as he was speaking of it to his companion bernard, a well-appointed cavalier brought him one ready dressed, saying, "servant of god, take what the lord sends thee," after which he disappeared. francis, admiring the goodness of god, who fulfils the desires of those who fear him, ate willingly of this celestial food, and was so strengthened by it, that he rose up immediately and continued his journey through dauphiny and piedmont; from whence he went to st. mary of the angels, continuing to perform the functions of an apostle and patriarch of the order on his way, but not without having to endure the honors which his miracles and the reputation of his sanctity procured him from all parts. his return was the subject of great rejoicing to his children, to clare in particular, and to a number of young men, among whom were many nobles and many learned persons who were waiting to be received into the order. he was surprised to find a building which peter of catania, his own vicar had constructed during his absence; he inquired the reason of it, and peter having replied, "that it was for the accommodation of their guests, where they might say the divine office more commodiously," he said:--"brother peter, this place is the rule and the model of the order; i choose that those who come to it shall suffer the inconveniences of poverty as well as those who live in it, in order that they may tell others how poorly we live at st. mary's of the portiuncula; for if the guests see that they are provided with everything they can wish for, they will expect the same thing in their provinces, and will say, that they only do as they do at portiuncula, which is the original place of the institution." he was desirous that the building should be pulled down, and he even directed it to be done; but, upon the representations of the need they had of it, he consented to let it stand. they could not do without room to lodge the number of people who were drawn thither by the rumor of his great virtues, and the multitudes of his religious who came from various parts to consult him. those whom he had destined for mount alvernia, having come with several others to congratulate him on his return, informed him that count orlando had loaded them with favors; that they were settled on the mountain, and that it was the place, of all others, proper for contemplation. this gave him a wish to go thither, and he set out with three companions, leo, masse, and angelo of rieti. it was his custom in travelling to name one of those who accompanied him as guardian and leader, and he obeyed him humbly in all things. on this occasion, he gave this commission to masse, desiring him not to disquiet himself about their food, and giving no other instructions, except that the divine office should be punctually and piously recited, that silence should be rigidly observed, and that their deportment should be reserved. he preached, as usual, wherever he went, and performed many miracles. one night he went into a church which was deserted, in order to pass the night in prayer, knowing from experience that the spirit of god was communicated more freely to the soul in quiet solitary places. at the beginning of the night, the devils used every sort of artifice to interrupt his prayers and to disturb him. then they attacked him in person, as st. athanasius relates that they did st. anthony, so that they seemed to come to blows with him. the more they annoyed him, the more fervently he prayed, and the more strenuously he invoked jesus christ with confidence, in the words of the prophet:--"protect me under the shadow of thy wings from these wicked ones who pursue me;" and he said to the devils:--"spiteful and deceitful spirits, do all you can against me, for you can do nothing but what god permits, and here i am, ready to suffer with pleasure all the afflictions it is his pleasure to send me." then the devils cast themselves upon him with still greater violence; they pushed him about on all sides, they dragged him along the ground and beat him severely. in the midst of his sufferings, he exclaimed:--"my lord jesus christ, i give thee thanks for all thy benefits; this is not one of the least; it is an assured mark of the goodness thou hast for me. thou punishest my sins in this world to spare me in the next. my heart is ready, o my god, my heart is ready to suffer still more if such be thy holy will." st. bonaventure says, that he was often tormented in this manner by demons; but that these proud spirits, not being able either to overcome him, or to bear his constancy, retired in confusion. such a resistance would repress all the efforts of the tempter when he attacks us invisibly. in the morning, he could not disguise from his companions what had happened to him, and the extreme weakness which it had brought on obliged him to desire his companions to go to the neighboring village, to procure for him, in god's name, some means of riding on with them. the farmer to whom they applied, having learnt that it was for francis of assisi, of whom he had heard so much good spoken, went to fetch his own ass to carry him on, during the journey. on the way, francis bethought himself of stopping for a short time at this farmer's to recruit his strength by some poultry and other delicacies of the country; but, wishing to punish himself for having merely listened to such a suggestion, he took up a half-rotten fowl from a dunghill, and smelt at it, saying to himself:--"here, glutton! here is the flesh of the poultry that you so anxiously wished for; satisfy your longing, and eat as much as you like." to support himself, he ate nothing but bread, on which he sprinkled ashes, and he drank nothing but water. he blessed the house of his host, and promised him very long lineage, who should be neither poor nor very rich. the remembrance of this prediction has been carefully preserved in this place, and the house still exists, bearing the name of st. francis, where the religious of his order are always charitably received. this lesson is taught by the apostle:--"that god, by his blessing, gives to charitable persons the means of continuing and multiplying their good works." the invalid was replaced on the ass, and they took the road to chiusi which they reached by noon. count orlando was greatly pleased to see them, and would have been but too glad to detain them, if only for that day; but francis would go as soon as dinner was done to mount alvernia, whither the count accompanied him. "the mountain alvernia is on the confines of tuscany, not far from camaldoli and val ombrosa; it is part of the apennines, and it rises higher than the adjacent mountains from which it is separated: two rivers flow at its foot, the tiber and the arno. on their sides it has rocks so perpendicular and so smooth that they might be mistaken for walls; and on the side on which the top may be reached, no one would dare to attempt the ascent but for the number of beech trees and underwood which hide the precipices. these trees, which are very lofty, hide some extensive and beautiful pasturages. there also an abundance of plants is found called carline or caroline which is a cure for the plague." the farmer, who was their guide, made bold to address francis thus: "brother, i hear much good spoken of you, and i understand that god has shown you great favors, for which you are greatly indebted to him; strive, then, to be what it is said you are, and never to change in order that those who have confidence in you may not be deceived; this is a piece of advice i give you." francis, delighted at what he had heard, dismounted, kissed the man's feet, thanked him, acknowledging the great mercy of god, who had been pleased to cast his eyes on the lowliness of his servant. although this advice came from a poor countryman, it was nevertheless the very best that could be given to a saint. so true it is that no one should be despised, and that the most simple-minded persons often say more sensible and more spiritual things than men of the greatest genius. the same man being very thirsty at the steepest part of the mountain, exclaimed loudly: "i shall die, if i cannot get something to drink." francis immediately alighted, threw himself on his knees, raised his hands to heaven, and prayed until he knew that he had been heard. then, pointing out a large stone to the man, he said, "go there quickly, and you will find some living water: it is jesus christ who, out of his great mercy, makes it spring from this rock that you may drink." the man ran directly, found water, and drank as much as he required. no spring had ever been known to be in that place, and no water was ever found there afterwards. wonderful goodness of the almighty, exclaims st. bonaventure, who thus with so much benevolence grants the prayers of his servants. the birds seeing st. francis and his companions approaching came in great numbers to welcome him to their home. at length they reached the top of mount alvernia, where the religious resided. the father was well pleased with their dwelling, because everything was on a small scale and poor. count orlando returned in the evening and came back next day, bringing something for their dinner. after they had finished their meal, he gave orders for the construction of a small chapel under a very tall beech tree, and a cell, which francis had asked him for, and, calling the others aside, he said: "since your founder has given his consent to the donation i made you two years ago of this mountain, you may consider it as yours, and hence both myself and mine will be always devoted to your service whenever you shall need it. you will not be able to please me more than by addressing yourselves to me, looking upon me as your servant; and even, if you will do me that favor, considering me as one of your brethren." after the departure of the count, the holy patriarch made them the following discourse, relative to the count's kindness, which they took care to commit to writing: "my dear children, it is god who thus turns the hearts of the faithful towards his little and useless servants, in which he does us a very great favor. on what we have hitherto received let us place our hopes for what is to come; if that seems but little, the lord, who is infinitely liberal, will add to it by his goodness still greater benefits, provided we are faithful to him. let us, then, leave to him the care of all that relates to you, and he himself will feed you, as he fed elias, paul, and anthony in the desert. the birds of the air neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns, yet your heavenly father nourishes them; how much more will he do this for his servants? if he tries you, it will be only for a time, for it is written, that he will not suffer the just to waver forever; the eyes of the lord are on them that fear him, and on them that hope in his mercy to deliver their souls from death and feed them in famine. trust not to the princes of the earth, nor to the charitable offers made you by our benefactor, count orlando, for cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm. this lord has acted nobly by us, and according to his piety; let us do on our parts what depends on us, and fail not therein; that is to say, let us not have recourse to his generosity, as to a treasure of which we are the masters, and in that regard let us have the greatest reserve that we may not in any respect trench upon holy poverty. be sure, my dear children, that our best resource for providing for our wants, is to have none to provide for. if we are truly evangelical poor, the world will have compassion upon us, and will generously give us all that is necessary for our subsistence; but if we swerve from holy poverty, the world will shun us; the illicit means which we might take for avoiding indigence, would only make us feel it the more." is not such a discourse sufficient to show us, that st. francis had great talents and judgment, joined to great knowledge of the practice of virtue? count orlando had a church built on mount alvernia, according to the plan which the saint had given him, which, it was confidently said, had been given to francis by the blessed virgin, who appeared accompanied by st. john the baptist, and st. john the evangelist. while they were at work at this building and at the cells for the brethren, francis explored the mountain on all its sides, to discover the sites best adapted for contemplation. he found one, where there were some large openings in the rock, great masses overhanging them, deep caverns, and frightful pits; and what seemed to him to be most curious, there was a rock so split that the interior formed a room with a smooth flooring, and a sort of ceiling which had a small opening which admitted the light. he was anxious to know whether this was the natural formation of the rock, or whether it was not the effect of an earthquake; and, after having recited the seven penitential psalms, he begged god to grant him information on this head. an angel acquainted him, in an apparition, that this had happened at the death of jesus christ, when the earth shook and the rocks were rent asunder. this circumstance gave mount alvernia additional value in the eyes of the servant of jesus christ crucified. he never afterwards saw these openings without thinking of the sufferings his divine master endured on the cross, and without wishing that his feelings of compassion might break his heart. in the opinion of the holy fathers, the rocks which were rent when jesus christ expired were reproaches to the jews for the hardness of their hearts, and this reproach falls equally on christians who are insensible to his sufferings. we can have no difficulty in thinking, with cardinal baronius, that the rocks on mount alvernia were split at the death of our saviour, since the earthquake was universal, according to the opinions of eusebius, st. jerome, and many others, and even according to the testimony of pagan authors. it is also very credible that the son of god has manifested to his special servants, some of the effects of this motion of the earth, in order to impress more vividly on their minds the remembrance of his passion; and may we not think that the lord, who is the beholder of all ages, as the wise man says, and who had selected mount alvernia as the place in which he would do his servant francis the favor of imprinting the stigmata on him, as we shall see further on, was pleased to give this mountain some resemblance to that of calvary, where st. cyril of jerusalem assures us, that in his time the rents caused by the earthquake were seen? among the masses of rock on mount alvernia, there is one much more elevated and much larger than the rest, and which is separated from them by precipices, to which there is no access but by throwing a bridge across. there, as in an insulated citadel, a celebrated brigand had his stronghold, who was called the wolf, on account of the plunder and murders he committed in the surrounding country, either by himself, or by the gang of which he was the chief. he often, also, by means of a flying bridge, confined travellers in this place, whom he had surprised on the high-roads, and whom he detained till their ransom was paid. the establishment of francis and his brethren displeased him greatly: people of that sort do not like having neighbors. he gave them several times notice to begone, and he threatened them should they not obey. their great poverty gave them nothing to fear from thieves, but there was just cause for apprehending that the murderer might massacre them all. divine providence, however, saved them by a change which might well be called the work of the most high. the villain came one day determined upon expelling them, and used the most atrocious language to them. francis received him with so much mildness, listened to him with so much patience, and induced him by degrees to hear reason, so that his anger entirely fell, and he not only consented to their remaining, but he begged that they would admit him into their poor dwelling. he witnessed during several days their angelic mode of life, and he became so changed, that he determined upon adopting a similar plan. the saint perceiving that from a ravenous wolf he was become a gentle lamb, gave him the habit of the order, and the name of brother agnello, under which he expiated his crimes by religious penance, of which he rigidly fulfilled all the duties. this fact was of such notoriety, that the rock to which he used to retire has always been called since, and is still known, by the name of brother wolf's prison. all things being put in order at mount alvernia, he left it to go to rome. he passed through monte casale, fabriano, osimo, ancona, macerata, ascoli, camerino, and many other places, preaching in all the truths of salvation, gaining disciples, founding houses for his order, prophesying and working miracles; we shall only put on record here the most remarkable, and those that are most edifying. god favored him, as he had done st. ambrose, with power of discovering relics which were hidden. he knew by revelation that there were some in a certain church in which he had prayed, and some business calling him away from thence, he communicated the circumstance to his brethren, desiring them to take them from thence and place them in a more suitable situation; but they either through forgetfulness or neglect did not do so. one day as they were preparing the altar for mass, they found under the altar-cloth some beautiful bones, from which a sweet perfumed smell issued, and they immediately recollected that these were the relics of which their father had spoken. at his return he inquired whether they had been disinterred, and the religious, having told him exactly what had occurred, he said: "blessed be the lord, my god, who, of his goodness, has done what you ought to have done out of obedience;" but he imposed a penance upon them in expiation of their fault. at the monastery of monte maggiore, a joy and interior consolation which he felt on entering the church, made him sensible that the high altar contained something which had been used by the blessed virgin. he spoke of it to the religious, who searched closely, and found that it was true. in ecclesiastical history we find that god had often caused the relics of his saints to be discovered, in order to do them honor, and the holy fathers have taught the faithful to venerate them and to preserve them with great care. while he was preaching at fabriano in the middle of the market-place, some workmen who were employed at a palace made so much noise, that it prevented his being heard. having entreated them to be quiet for a short time, to which they paid no attention, he said that the work of those who were building the house would be of no use, because the lord did not build it, but that it would soon fall; however, that neither man nor beast would be injured by it; and this happened but a few days after it had been finished, as he had foretold. he assured the people at the same town, that at a place called the poor valley, his brethren, who were poor, would some day have a habitation. and, in fact, in the year , the town of fabriano placed friars minor there. among the most considerable establishments which he placed on his route, was that of st. mary of the stony valley, so called from its being situated in a very rocky valley, between two mountains, four miles distant from fabriano. it was a church dedicated to the blessed virgin, with a monastery, which the religious of st. benedict had abandoned in order to take refuge in the town, on account of the wars, and it is one of the most beautiful solitudes of all italy. devotion to the mother of god, and the love of retreat, had induced francis to ask for this place; and it was given him by those who were its proprietors. the first time he went there, he lost his way, with his companion, and asked a ploughman to take him to the valley. "what," says the man, "shall i leave my plough and lose my time, to serve you?" however, he took him to the place, mollified by francis' mildness, and by his promising him that he should be no loser by so doing: on returning, after receiving the father's blessing, he found his field quite ploughed. some workmen who were employed repairing a house which had been given him, at a place called trabe bonata, being very tired, asked him to give them some wine. he sent two of his brethren to procure some in a neighboring village, from some charitable benefactor; but the workmen being very urgent, out of compassion for them he went to a spring, made the sign of the cross over it, and in an instant, instead of water, wine issued from it, which flowed for a whole hour. those who drank of it published in all places the miraculous effect of the saint's charity. in a parish called la citta, he was very well received by the curate, whose name was raniero, with whom he became very intimate, so that he was in the habit of visiting him, and going to confession to him. one day after confession he gave him, in a very humble manner, notice, that he, the curate, would become one of his brethren, because they had become too closely united to live different kinds of lives: "but," he said, "this will not happen till after my death." the event verified the prediction: as soon as the curate learnt that his friend francis shone by an infinity of miracles, and was just canonized, he entered the order of friars minor, and adhered to the rules with great regularity. the holy man coming to osimo, was greeted, notwithstanding his great humility, and brought into the town, with great honors. the next day he preached on the vanity of the world, in so persuasive a strain, that all his hearers, penetrated with compunction, turned their thoughts seriously to their reformation, and thirty young men entered his institute. on the same journey, he and his companions lodged at the house of a gentleman, the greatness of whose soul equalled the antiquity of his nobility, and whose politeness was joined to piety. the welcome he received there was followed by this open-hearted proffer: "man of god," he said, "i place my person at your disposal, and all that i possess, all is yours, do as you please with it; if you want clothing, or a cloak, or books, or whatever it may be, take it, and i will pay for it. be assured that i am wholly at your service. god has given me wealth; i have wherewithal to assist the poor, and it is but just that i do not fail in so doing." francis merely at the time contented himself with making those grateful acknowledgments which so handsome and obliging an offer required; but when he left him, he could not refrain from admiring the generosity of this gentleman, and he said to his companion: "indeed, brother, he would be an excellent subject for our order; he is humbly thankful for what he has received from god; he loves his neighbor very sincerely; he gives willingly to the poor; and he exercises hospitality from his heart; he is extremely affable and polite; and politeness is sister to charity; it puts down contention and promotes concord; he is naturally benevolent; and this feeling is highly pleasing to our father who is in heaven, who causes the sun to rise on the good and on the wicked. so many excellent qualities which i see in this young man, make me wish to have him to be one of us, and i should admit him with pleasure. we must pay him another visit, and exhort him to devote himself to the service of god; perhaps the holy ghost may incline him to do so; meanwhile let us implore the lord to grant our wish, if he judges it right." in fact, they did pray for this purpose. some days afterwards they returned to this person's house, who had the curiosity to watch what francis did in the night; he saw him in prayer, and in an ecstasy raised from the ground, and surrounded by a splendid light, and he felt interiorly a certain celestial fire, which inspired him with an ardent desire to imitate his mode of life. in the morning, he communicated his feelings to the saint, who was already made aware of them by revelation, and who thanked the giver of all good gifts for them. the postulant gave all he had to the poor, took the habit of a friar minor, and lived holily; preserving always the same affable and polite manners, with which he received the guests of the convents in which he resided. this endeared him still more to the patriarch, who was very zealous in the exercise of hospitality. the duties of hospitality, lauded by the pagans, taught by the gospel, enforced by the apostles, and all the holy fathers, are exercised in the order of st. francis with so much the more care as, being totally dependent on charity, they consider themselves bound to give all in the same manner, and they apply to themselves these words of the son of god to the apostles, on the gift of miracles: "freely you have received, freely give." this is what draws down the blessing of god, and which makes so many houses subsist, without any revenue, by the charity of the faithful. the holy patriarch of the friars minor arrived at rome when everything was preparing for the opening of the twelfth ecumenical council, the th of lateran, one of the most numerous ever held in the church. innocent iii had convoked it for the extinction of heresies, for the reformation of morals, for regulating the discipline of the church, and for the recovery of the holy land by the union of the christian princes. francis came to rome to induce the sovereign pontiff to give a public approval to the rule of his order, which was of the highest importance in order that the prelates might have it in their power to distinguish the poor of jesus christ, true children of the church, from certain sectaries of those times who affected, as has been already said, to bear the marks of apostolic poverty. what the servant of god required was put in force; the pope declared before all the fathers of the council, that he approved the order and the rule of st. francis, although he had hitherto issued no bull. this is a fact which is related by the companions of the saint who wrote his life, and by two authors of the order of st. dominic, jordan of saxony, a disciple of that blessed patriarch, and st. antoninus. moreover, in order to avoid too great a variety of religious orders, the council prohibited the formation of any new ones, and directed that the existing ones should be considered sufficient. yet it is clear that the pope could not, in this instance, avoid making known the approbation he had given to an order so new and peculiar as was that of the friars minor, which in the last five years, had spread over italy, and was established in rome. the holy friendship which was subsequently formed between st. dominic and st. francis, renders it proper that we should here record that st. dominic came also to this lateran council, together with fulke, bishop of toulouse, in order to propose to the pope an intention he had of instituting an order of preachers, and that the pope had seen in a dream st. dominic supporting the lateran church, which was falling, in the same way as he had seen francis supporting it five years before. he praised his undertaking, but told him, according to the decree of the council, to return with his brethren, and prepare a rule for the guidance of the order, and then come back to have the order confirmed, which the holy patriarch complied with. the council of lateran having terminated its labors, francis left rome at the beginning of december to return to st. mary of the angels. when he had reached his convent, clare, who, being very humble, had accepted only through obedience the quality of abbess of st. damian, wished to lay it down into his hands, to which he would by no means assent, because he knew that by the disposition of divine providence, she was to form the disciples who were to establish his order in various places, from whence it was to spread throughout the church. clare had admitted many virgins during the three years she had presided over st. damian, among whom were some of her own relatives. beatrice, the youngest of her sisters, came a short time afterwards; and hortolona, her mother, as soon as she became a widow, decided upon consecrating herself to god, with her three daughters, in the same monastery, where miracles testified to the holiness of her life. finally, the virtues of clare were so resplendent, and the miracles which it pleased the almighty to work by her means, threw so much splendor around her, that, according to the remark of pope alexander iv, in the bull of her canonization, the truth of the prediction which was made to her mother, was clearly seen:--"that she would give to the world a light which would even enlighten the world." the sequel of the life of the father will afford further opportunity for speaking of the daughter. the benedictines of mount soubazo, in this year, gave the holy patriarch a convent on this very mountain, two miles from assisi. it has been called the prison of st. francis, because he often shut himself up there in contemplation after his apostolical labors. his oratory is still there, also: his cell, the stone and the wood which served him for bed and pillow, and a copious spring which, by his intercession, he obtained from god. from the beginning of the following year, , to the th of may, the festival of whitsuntide, the day on which the general chapter was held, which was the first of the order, he had as much leisure as he could desire for conversing with god, for giving instruction to his brethren at st. mary of the angels, and to the town of assisi and its environs. in the assembly, provincial ministers were appointed, to whom power was given for admitting postulants into the order; which the founder had previously reserved to himself. one whose name does not appear, was sent into apulia, and john de strachia was sent into lombardy; benedict of arezzo, into the marches of ancona; daniel the tuscan, into calabria; augustin of assisi, into the terra di lavoro; elias of cortona, into tuscany. evangelical laborers were chosen for different nations. bernard de quintavalle, for spain; john bonella, a florentine, with thirty companions, for provence; john de penna, and sixty of his brethren, for upper and lower germany; francis took for his share paris and what is properly called france and the low countries. the apostolic laborers being all assembled at the feet of their father, to receive his orders, he addressed them with paternal tenderness, in the following discourse:-- "in the name of the lord, go forth modestly, two and two, observing strict silence from the morning till after the hour of tierce, praying to god from your hearts. let no idle or useless words be heard among you; although you are travelling, your deportment should be as humble and as decorous as if you were in a hermitage, or in your cells. for wherever we are, and, whithersoever we may be going, we have always our vocation with us; our brother, the body, is our cell, and the soul is the hermit, who dwells in it to think of god and to pray to him. if a religious soul does not dwell quietly in the cell of the body, the external cells will be of little use to him. behave, then, in such manner in the world, that whosoever may see or hear you, may be moved to devotion, and praise our heavenly father to whom alone all glory belongs. proclaim peace to all men, but have it in your hearts, as well as in your mouths. give to no one cause for anger, nor for scandal; on the contrary, by your own mildness, induce every one to feel benignly, and draw them to union and to concord. we are called to heal the wounded, console the afflicted, and to bring back those who err; many may seem to you to be members of the devil, who will one day be disciples of jesus christ." what francis said of the inutility of exterior cells, where the soul is not at ease in the cell of the body, is in conformity to these words of st. bernard:--"you may be alone when you are in the midst of the world, as it may so happen that you may be in the midst of the world when you are alone." the children of the holy patriarch received his blessing; and having recommended themselves to the prayers of their companions, they set out for those places to which obedience sent them. the success of the several labors will be adverted to further on. the missionaries for provence remained some days after the breaking up of the chapter, to receive further instructions relative to their mission. the day of their departure, there were only three loaves of bread in the convent, two of which had been sent there by clare; these were found sufficient for more than thirty who were present, and there was a great deal to spare, a circumstance which was considered to be a good omen. francis, having animated all the others by his zeal, prepared himself for setting out for paris. besides the natural affection he had for france, of which he liked the language, as it was familiar to him, he chose this city preferably to many others, because he knew that their devotion was great towards the blessed sacrament, and this was a great attraction for his piety. may the parisians ever entertain and transmit to their posterity this fervent devotion of their ancestors, which pope urban iv., who was a native of france, stirred up in the hearts of the faithful forty-six years afterwards, by the institution of the feast of the most holy sacrament, which is celebrated throughout the church, with so much solemnity. the bull which he issued on this occasion, enters into the strongest and most moving arguments calculated to inspire veneration, love, and the zeal which the precious memorial of the goodness of the son of god calls for, and to invite to a frequent and worthy participation in the divine mystery, which the council of trent has since expressed its anxiety to see reestablished. before his departure, francis undertook to reconcile the members of the illustrious family of the baselennesi, a long time disunited by unhappy family dissensions, and he succeeded to the satisfaction of all parties. out of gratitude they had built for him, on one of their estates on a spot near the tiber, surrounded with very beautiful trees, a convent called st. angel of pantanellis. he chose to go once more to rome to recommend to the holy apostles his journey to france. on the road, having seated himself close to a spring to take his meal, he put some pieces of bread, which had been given to him on his quest, and which were very hard and mouldy, on a stone near him; he expressed much satisfaction, and he pressed his companion masse to give thanks to god for so great a treasure; and he repeated several times the same thing, elevating his voice more and more. "but of what treasure are you talking" said masse, "at a time when we are in want of many things?" "the great treasure is," replied francis, "that, being in want of so much, god has had the goodness to furnish us by his providence with that bread and this spring, and to find us this stone to serve as a table." he went shortly after into a church, where he prayed to god to give him and his children the love of holy poverty; and his prayer was so fervent that fire seemed to issue from his countenance. full of this celestial ardor, he went towards masse with open arms, calling him by name with a loud voice; masse, in great astonishment, going to throw himself into the arms of his father, was raised into the air several cubits high, and felt such sweetness in his soul, that he frequently afterwards declared that he had never experienced anything like it. after this ecstasy, francis spoke to him on the subject of poverty in an admirable strain. when at rome, in a chapel of the church of st. peter, while he was praying with tears that the holy apostles would give him instructions on the subject of holy poverty and of an apostolic life, they appeared to him surrounded by lights, and, after tenderly embracing him, said: "brother francis, our lord jesus christ has sent us to tell you that he has favorably heard your prayers and tears on the subject of holy poverty, which he himself had followed, as well as his blessed mother, and we, who are his apostles, after his example. this treasure is granted to you for yourself and for your children; those who shall carefully adhere to it, will have the kingdom of heaven for their reward." the servant of god, filled with consolation, went to his companion masse, to whom he communicated what had passed, and they went together to give thanks at the place which is called the confession of st. peter, which is his tomb. while francis was at rome, pope innocent iii died at perugia. he was of the illustrious house of the counts of segni, which has given five popes to the church, the last of whom was innocent xiii, of blessed memory. it was at the university of paris that his merit was first noticed; he shone there above the many who were its honor and its ornament. it was his rare and transcendent qualities which induced the cardinals unanimously to elect him to the pontificate; and these qualities shone with additional splendor when his humility urged his resistance to the election, from which he prayed with unaffected tears to be released. his government and the works he has left to posterity, show, that he had great genius, great science, prudence, and probity, with solid piety, and ardent zeal. "he was," says a french contemporary writer "a man of great courage and great wisdom, who had no equal in his day, and who did marvellous things." he was indeed one of the most eminent men who have filled the chair of st. peter. the affection he bore to francis, and the favors he conferred on his order, have compelled us to do this justice here to his memory. on the th of july, they elected for his successor cardinal savelli, who took the name of honorius iii. he was a learned and worthy man. he generally followed the designs of his predecessor, and had a similar affection for the religious orders, of which he gave substantial proofs in the favors he bestowed on that of st. francis. some months after his election, he gave his approval of the order of st. dominic. this holy patriarch having returned to his companions to fix upon a rule, as had been recommended to him by pope innocent at the lateran council, and having adopted the rule of st. augustine, to which he had added some more austere regulations, came back to rome to procure the approval of the holy see. while he solicited it from honorius, who had arrived from perugia, he made acquaintance and contracted an intimacy with francis, in consequence of a miraculous vision which he had in the church of st. peter, where he prayed unceasingly with great fervor for the success of his enterprise. he saw the son of god seated on the right hand of his father, who rose up greatly irritated against sinners, holding three darts in his hand, for the extirpation of the proud, the avaricious, and the voluptuous. his holy mother threw herself at his feet, and prayed for mercy, saying that she had persons who would remedy the evil; and she at the same time introduced to him dominic and francis, as being proper persons for reforming the world, and reestablishing piety; this pacified jesus christ. dominic, who had never seen francis, met him next day, recognized him, ran to him and embraced him, saying: "you are my companion; we will work in concert with each other; let us be strictly united, and no one will be able to master us." francis himself communicated this favor of heaven to the children of dominic: and st. vincent ferrer, and some other authors quoted by wading, say that francis had received a similar favor from heaven. the event proved the truth of the vision. dominic alone, without any human aid, having nothing to command success but poverty, humility, and prayer, obtained the approbation of his order, which was an affair of great difficulty, particularly at the commencement of a pontificate, when the pope is occupied by most important affairs. we may here notice the groundwork of the ardent zeal of the friars preachers and the friars minor for the glory of the mother of god. persuaded that their orders were established under her protection, and that she is especially the mother of their holy patriarchs, they strive by every means in their power to restore the devout veneration due to her. it is the common interest of all the faithful who see that she is, according to the expression of the holy fathers, their advocate and their mediatrix; that she prays and solicits for them; that she interposes between them and the wrath of her son, and appeases him: this affords great room for confidence in her, and should induce them to invoke her for their conversion and sanctification. dominic and francis, confident of the protection of the blessed virgin, entered into a strict friendship and resolved to spare no pains in their exertions for the glory of god, and concerted together as to the best means for attaining their object. upon which an author quoted by wading, makes a most appropriate reflection: "it was," he says, "something admirable to see two men, who were poor, badly clad, without power or interest despicable in the eyes of the world, divide between them the world itself, and undertake to conquer it. who would not have turned their plans into ridicule hearing them seriously consult together on such an undertaking, since they seemed to have so little means of carrying them into execution? nevertheless, they succeeded; because god selected by their means to confound what is strong." they resembled st. peter and st. paul, proposing to themselves, in the same city of rome, to convert the universe by the preaching of the gospel; this shows that god made use of means for reanimating the faith, similar to those which he had employed to establish it. it is reported, that while dominic and francis were still at rome, angelus, of the order of the carmelites, who was afterwards martyred in sicily, was also there; that, preaching in the church of st. john lateran, where the two others were among the hearers, he foretold that they would become two great pillars of the church; that when the sermon was finished, they foretold to one another what would happen to each of them, and even that francis would receive the stigmata; then the three together cured a man afflicted with leprosy, and passed a day and a night together in prayer and conversing on holy subjects. francis left rome at the end of the year, intending to continue his journey into france. he passed through sienna and by mount alvernia and arrived at florence in the month of january, , to pay his dutiful respects to cardinal ugolino, who was papal legate there. this cardinal, who had declared himself his protector and his friend, when he went to request the approbation of his rule from pope innocent iii., in , received him with great kindness, detained him some days, inquired into the affairs of his order, and said to him on the subject of his journey: "francis, your order is still in its infancy. you know the opposition it met with in rome, and you have still there some secret enemies; if there is not some one there to watch over your interests, it will be an easy matter to cause all you have obtained to be revoked. your presence will go a great way in upholding your work, and those who are attached to you will have a greater stimulus for giving you their support. as to myself, i am from this moment wholly yours." the holy man, after having thanked the cardinal, replied: "i have sent many of my brethren into far distant countries. if i remain quietly in our convent, without taking any share in their labors, it will be a great shame for me; and these poor religious, who are suffering hunger and thirst, will have great reason to murmur and complain; but instead of that, if they find that i work as much as they do, they will bear their fatigues more willingly, and i shall more easily persuade them to undertake similar missions." the cardinal, feeling for the sufferings of these missionaries, said: "but why, brother, have you the harshness to expose your disciples to such arduous journeying and to so much suffering?" "my lord," replied francis, who was urged by a prophetic spirit, "you think that god has sanctioned the institute for this country only; but i tell you that he has formed it for the good of the universe, and for the salvation of all men, without excluding the infidels: for religious of this order will go into their territories; and provided they live in conformity to the gospel, god will provide amply for all their wants, even among the enemies of his name." these words made a great impression on the cardinal, who was a very holy man, and increased his affection for francis, whom he again exhorted in stronger language than before, to remain in italy to consolidate an institute which was to have such beneficial results. the saint having yielded to the reasoning of the cardinal, entreated him to be the protector of the friars minor, according to his promise, and to be so good as to be present at the next general chapter; after which he took the road to the valley of spoleto. there he learnt that some of his brethren had been seriously ill-treated by several prelates, and that at the court of rome there were persons who spoke against his order. this news confirmed him in the resolution he had taken to remain in italy; and he named three of his disciples for the french mission, to wit: pacificus of the marches of ancona, the celebrated poet, whose conversion we have related; angelus, and albert, both of pisa. he likewise intended to request the pope to nominate a cardinal of the holy roman church, to protect his order against all who should attack it. three of his companions, the writers of his life, say, that he was induced to this by a celestial vision in his sleep. he saw a hen endeavoring to gather all her chickens under her wings, to protect them from a hawk; she could not cover them all, and many were about to become its prey; but another large bird appeared, spread its wings over them, and preserved them from the danger. on awaking, francis prayed our lord to explain to him the meaning of this, and he learnt that the hen represented himself, and the chickens were his disciples, that the bird with the large wings represented the cardinal, whom they were to solicit for their protector. he told all this to his brethren, and addressed them as follows:-- "the roman church is the mother of all the churches, and the sovereign of all religious orders. it is to her that i shall address myself to recommend to her my brethren, in order that her authority may silence those who are hostile to them, and that she may procure for the children of god full and perfect liberty to advance quietly in the way of eternal salvation; for when they shall be under her protection, there will be no more enemies to oppose them, nor disturb them; there will not be seen among them any son of belial to ravage with impunity the vineyard of the lord. the holy church will be zealous for the glory of our poverty; she will not suffer that the humility which is so honorable to her, shall be obscured by the clouds of pride. it is she who will render indissoluble among us, the bonds of charity and peace, rigorously punishing the authors of dissensions. under her eyes, the holy evangelical observance will ever flourish in its pristine purity; she will never permit these holy practices to flag even momentarily, those practices which shed around them a vivifying light. may the children, then, of that holy church be very grateful for the great favors which they receive from their mother; let them kiss her feet with profound veneration, and remain forever inviolably attached to her." the first words of this discourse show that st. francis was perfectly cognizant of the prerogatives of the church of rome, and of the extent of the authority of the holy see. it was not in vain that he sought her protection, since his order was established, extended, supported, and sometimes even renovated under this powerful authority; and the attachment to the holy see, which he so strongly recommended to his brethren, has been so visibly manifested during five centuries, that it has procured for them the esteem and love of all catholics, as well as the hatred of the heretics, so that they have the honor of having some share in the eulogiums which st. jerome passed on st. augustine: "the catholics esteem and respect you, and, what enhances your glory, all the heretics detest you. they hold me in equal hatred; and if they durst not put both the one and the other of us to death, they have at least the wish to do so." this wish of the heretics has not been without effect as regards the children of st. francis, for of a thousand martyrs which they reckon in his order, a very great number of them were put to death with greater cruelty in this and latter times by the sectarians than by idolatrous tyrants. heresy will be ever so, the daughter of a parent, who, according to the words of jesus christ, was a murderer from the beginning. the holy patriarch went then to rome, where he found cardinal ugolino, who was returned from tuscany, to whom he communicated the intention he had of soliciting the pope for a protector. the cardinal at the same time expressed his wish to hear him preach before the pope and the sacred college. francis excused himself from this as much as he could, assigning for reasons, his ignorance, his simplicity, and his uncultivated mind, which unfitted him for speaking in the most august assembly in the world. but he was obliged to yield to the pressing instances of the cardinal, who entreated him as a friend to comply, and even ordered him to prepare himself for the task, recommending him to compose carefully a sermon wherein there should be as much erudition and reasoning as such an audience required. up to that time, the servant of god had never prepared himself for preaching; he only spoke from the pulpit what the holy ghost inspired. nevertheless, he, in this instance, obeyed the cardinal; he prepared a sermon as carefully as he could, and learned it by heart. when he came into the presence of the pope, he forgot every part of the discourse, and could not utter a syllable of it. but after having humbly explained the circumstance, and implored the aid of the holy ghost, words flowed copiously from his mouth, and he spoke with so much eloquence and animation, that the pope and cardinal were deeply affected. having been admitted to an audience of the pope in presence of cardinal ugolino, he said: "most holy father, i am not in fear of becoming importunate for the interests of your lowly servants, the friars minor, while you are occupied with so many important affairs which regard the whole church. i entreat you to give us this cardinal, to whom we may have recourse in our wants, always under your sanction, since it is from you, the head of the mystical body, that all power emanates." the pope granted his request with alacrity, and recommended the cardinal to take great care of the order. from that time, the orders of friars minor have always had a cardinal protector, whose powers are extended as the pope shall see fit; the terms of the rule, which oblige the order by obedience to apply for one, show, that it was the intention of francis, that his powers should be most ample. cardinal ugolino was one of the most accomplished men of the city of rome; his person well made, his countenance mild and majestic, his genius quick, with great memory and eloquence, possessing in perfection all human sciences, civil and canon-law, and particularly the holy scriptures; he was very expert in all public business; a lover of virtue and order, and of a pure and exemplary life. his first care in undertaking the office of protector, which he did willingly, was, to defend the friars against all those who attacked them, to conciliate the prelates in their favor and to spread them into all parts for the salvation of souls; his great authority silenced their enemies. as often as his affairs admitted of it, he assisted at their general chapters; then he officiated pontifically. francis acted as his deacon, and preached. he conformed to the rule of the institute as much as was in his power, and was, when with them, as one of themselves, and even endeavored to appear as the lowest among them. a contemporary author, who was an ocular witness, expresses himself thus: "o how often has he been seen humbly to divest himself of the marks of his high dignity; put on the poor habit, and, with bare feet, join the religious in the regular exercises, in order to imitate their evangelical life!" a lively and enlightened faith, a solid and fervent piety, and a superior mind, convinced him that since the time of the abasement of the son of god, humiliation is honorable, and adds to the splendor of the highest dignities; a truth which is not understood by persons of little faith, by the proud, the indevout, and those of little mind. this great cardinal respected francis as much as he loved him; looking upon him as a man sent down from heaven. his presence was a source of pleasure to him, and he often admitted, as the above-quoted author states, that from the time he had made acquaintance with this holy man, as soon as he saw him and heard him speak, all that caused in him uneasiness of mind, or grief at heart was dispelled; his countenance became serene, and his soul was filled with fervor. francis, on his side, had great veneration for the cardinal. he insisted on his brethren considering him as the pastor of the flock, and, with an attachment as tender as that of an infant for its mother's breast, he gave him in all things marks of the profoundest deference. one day, hearing that he was about to receive a visit from him he ran away and hid himself in the thickest part of the wood. the cardinal had him sought for, and went himself in search for him. having found him he asked francis as his friend to tell why he avoided him. "my lord and my father," answered the humble francis, "as soon as i knew that your grandeur intended to honor me with your presence, me who am the poorest and the most despicable of men, i was covered with confusion, and i blushed at the thought of my baseness, finding myself wholly unworthy to receive so distinguished an honor, for i truly revere you as my lord and my father." these feelings were partly owing to a vision he had, which revealed to him that this cardinal would be pope; he foretold it to him,--this is recorded by st. bonaventure; and in the private letters which he wrote to him, he put on the heading: to my reverend father and lord ugolino, who is one day to be the bishop of the whole world, and the father of all nations. the respectful gratitude of the friars minor required that we should insert all these anecdotes in memory of cardinal ugolino, who honored the holy patriarch of his order, as well as that of st. clare, with his affection, his protection, and his liberality, and who surpassed all his former favors ten years afterwards, when he was pope under the name of gregory ix. when francis had obtained from the pope so powerful a protector, and had put his various affairs in order, he set out on his return to st. mary of the angels, but he spent the remainder of the year in the valley of rieti, where he performed many wonderful things, of which one of his companions has given a very ample account. at grecio, or grecchia, a very dissolute town in which he first preached, no one frequented the sacraments; no one listened to the word of god, and marriages within the prohibited degrees were of ordinary occurrence.--by word and example he urged them to repentance and made such an impression that they entreated him to make some brothers stay among them. he willingly agreed to do so, in the hope of their conversion, which took place in a short time; meanwhile he retired to a mountain, from whence he came to grecio and other places to preach. on returning one day from cotanello, a neighboring town, and not being able to find the way to the mountain, he asked a farmer to be his guide. this man excusing himself, saying that there were wolves in that direction that committed great havoc, francis promised him, and pledged himself as his surety, that he should not be attacked by any wolf either in going or coming back; he found that the saint was correct, for, in returning, two wolves which were in the way, played with him as dogs do, and followed him to his house without doing him any harm. the farmer reported this over all his neighborhood, and said that, assuredly, the man to whom he had served as guide, must be a great favorite with god, who gave him such absolute command over the wolves. upon this they assembled in great numbers, and came to the man of god, entreating him to deliver them from their calamities. "two sorts of calamities bore hard upon them," says st. bonaventure, "wolves and hail." the wolves were so ravenous in the environs of grecio, that they devoured both cattle and men; and the hail fell every year in such quantity and of such large size, that their crops of corn were destroyed, and their vineyards sorely damaged. francis preached on this subject, and pointed out to them that scourges of this nature were the punishment of sin; and he ended by saying: "for the honor and for the glory of god, i pledge my word to you, that if you choose to give credit to what i say, and have pity on your own souls, by making a good confession, and showing worthy fruits of repentance, god will look upon you with a favorable eye; will deliver you from your calamities, and render your country abundant in all sorts of good things. but i also declare to you that if you are ungrateful for these benefits, if, like the dog, you return to the vomit, god will be still more irritated against you, and you will feel the effects thereof twofold by the fresh afflictions he will then send." they believed the preacher, and did penance; from that moment the scourges ceased; nothing more was heard of wolves, and there was no more hail; and, what seemed most remarkable, continues st. bonaventure, was, that when it hailed in the vicinity, the cloud, on nearing their lands, either stopped or went off in another direction. this lasted as long as those people remained faithful to god. four authors, in different centuries, who have written the history of the valley of rieti, assure us, that when dissoluteness recommenced in that country, the wolves returned and made great havoc. wading, who wrote in italy in the th century, says, that the inhabitants of the valley admitted this to be the case. it is certain by the testimony of the holy scriptures, that the sins of the people call down not unfrequently the scourges of the wrath of god, which may be averted by repentance, or be rendered useful to salvation. but how many afflicted sinners are there, of whom it may be said with the prophet: "o lord, thou hast struck them, and they have not grieved; thou hast bruised them, and they have refused to receive correction; they have made their faces harder than the rock, and they have refused to return." a knight, whose name was john velita, who was converted by the preaching of francis, became his intimate friend, and used often to go to see him and consult him in his hut, which was made of the branches of two large hornbeams intertwined. as he was an elderly man, and very corpulent, whom the steepness of the road greatly fatigued, he begged francis to come nearer to the town: this would be agreeable to all, and he offered to build him a convent on any spot he should select. the servant of god assented to the proposal, and, smiling, promised the knight not to settle farther from the town than the distance to which a child could throw a lighted brand. upon this they went together down the mountain, and when they reached the gates of grecio, the knight sent the first child he met to fetch a lighted brand, and desired him to throw it as far as he could, not thinking he could throw it very far. but the child, with a strength surpassing that of men, threw the brand to a distance of more than a mile, and it fell on a hill belonging to the knight, and set fire to the wood which covered it, and lit at length on a very stony spot. this prodigy made it clear that god desired that a convent should be built there, and it was cut out of the rock. the oratory, the dormitory, and the refectory, which are still extant, on the ground floor, are only thirty feet long by six broad; precious remains, which show us the love of poverty which planned them. the saint founded three other establishments in the valley of rieti, at st. mary of the woods, at monte raniero, or monte columba, and at pui buscone. these four houses, which are situated on eminences on the four sides of the valley, formed together a cross. in each of them, as in the town of rieti, and all around the lake which surrounds it, traces are shown of several miracles which were performed by the man of god. he returned to st. mary of the angels in the month of january, , and he determined upon convoking a general chapter, which he proclaimed by circular letters, to be held on whitsuntide of the year , in order that he might be made acquainted with the state of the missions intrusted to his disciples, and that he might send missionaries into parts where there had hitherto been none. while he was thus occupied by his important projects for the salvation of souls, god, in order to prevent any emotions of pride stealing into his heart, and to maintain in him a profound humility, was pleased to permit that he should be attacked by a violent temptation; it was an extraordinary depression of spirits, which lasted several days. he made every effort to surmount it by his prayers and his tears; and one day when he was praying with more than ordinary fervor, a celestial voice said to him: "francis, if thou hadst the faith of a grain of mustard-seed, and thou wert to say to this mountain, go thither from hence, it would go." not understanding the meaning of these words, he asked "what is the mountain"; and he was answered: "the mountain is the temptation." he immediately replied, weeping and humbling himself: "lord, thy will be done." and from that moment the temptation ceased, and his mind became perfectly at ease. the year was divided between the stay he made at st. mary of the angels, for the instruction of his brethren, and some excursions he made to mount alvernia and to some other places, where new dwellings were made over to him. his route was always marked by the fruits of his preaching, and by the splendor of his miracles. passing by montaigu, above the valley of caprese, before a church of st. paul, which was being repaired, and seeing that two of the masons could not succeed in lifting a stone, which was to be placed as a jamb for the door, his compassion and zeal induced him to lift it and place it as required, which he did alone, and with a strength which was not that of a mortal. the abbot of the monastery of st. justin, in the diocese of perugia, met him, and alighted from his horse to compliment him, and to speak to him on some matters of conscience. after a conversation replete with unction, the abbot, recommended himself humbly to his prayers. francis replied: "i will pray with all my heart;" and they parted. at a little distance from thence, the saint said to his companion: "wait a little, brother, i will here perform my promise." he knelt to pray; and while he was so doing, the abbot, who was riding on, felt his mind inflamed with a suavity of devotion, such as he had never before experienced. he stopped, and the vivid impressions with which god favored him, threw him into an ecstasy. but when he came to himself again, he became aware that it was entirely owing to the prayers of francis. on his return from his last journey in , which was much longer than any of the others had been, francis found that another building, large and commodious, had been erected in his absence, close to the portiuncula convent. displeased at seeing this infringement of the rules of holy poverty, he took some of his brethren with him, and went on the roof, to begin to break it down, which he certainly would have carried through, had not some of the people from assisi, who were there, informed him that the building belonged to the town; that it had been built by them for the foreign religious, who daily arrived there, it being dishonorable to the town to see them compelled, in consequence of the want of room in the convent, to sleep outside, and even in the fields; that the town had destined this building for their accommodation, and that they would be received there in its name. on hearing this he came down, and said:--"if that, then, is your house, i leave it, and shall not meddle with it; we shall have nothing to do with it, neither myself nor my brethren; take care of it yourselves." it was decided in consequence by a deliberation of the municipality, that the magistrates should provide for the repairs. book iii the time of the general chapter drew near, of that chapter which became so celebrated by the number of religious which attended it, and by many other marvellous circumstances. before its assembling, the holy patriarch proposed to go to perugia, to confer with the cardinal protector, who was living there, on the affairs of the order. wading states, on good authority, that st. dominic was there at the same time, and that they had several deliberations together with the cardinal, who had a like esteem for both. one day when they were in serious conversation on the affairs of the church, the cardinal asked them whether they should consider it advisable for some of their members to be raised to ecclesiastical dignities; "for," said he, "i am persuaded that they would have no less zeal for the glory of god and the salvation of souls, than those bishops of the early ages of the church, who, although in great poverty, animated by ardent charity, fed their flocks with salutary instructions and the example of a good life." after a contest of humility between the two patriarchs, as to who should speak first, dominic, urged by francis to take the lead, said to him:--"you excel me in humility, and i will excel you in obedience." he then gave the cardinal this answer:--"my lord, my brethren may well consider themselves as holding a very elevated rank. what is there more honorable than teaching others from the evangelical pulpit? what should well-thinking minds desire more than to be employed in defence of the faith, and to combat the enemies of the church? for this reason i strenuously desire that my brethren may remain as they are, and i will keep them so as long as i can." francis made the following reply:--"my lord, my brethren have received the appellation of minors, in order that they might never have the presumption to become great. if it be your intention that they shall bear fruit in the church, leave them in their vocation, and never permit them to be raised to prelatures." the cardinal was greatly edified by their answers, and highly commended the humility of their opinions, but he did not therefore change his views. he thought, on the contrary, that such ministers would be most useful in the church, considering the corruption of the times. the church has since followed the opinion of this eminent dignitary, having made many bishops and cardinals from the two orders, and several have been even elevated to the sovereign pontificate. but the friars preachers and the friars minor, who have preserved the spirit of their vocation, have never had any other feelings than those of their holy patriarchs on the subject of ecclesiastical dignities. they have refused them as long as they could, and those who have accepted them, have been compelled to do so by superior authority, which they could not be dispensed from obeying. brother leo, the companion and confessor of st. francis, who was at perugia, and who assisted at all the conferences, says, that they spoke much on the propagation of the faith and the salvation of souls; that, having made reciprocal inquiries into the peculiarities of their respective orders, dominic proposed to francis to unite them, and make but one order, in order that the difference of the institute should not divide those whom the intimate friendship of their fathers had closely united. to this proposition francis replied:--"my dear brother, it has been god's will that our orders should be different, the one more austere than the other, in order to their being by this variety better adapted to human infirmity, and to give an opportunity to such as could not bear a life of very great austerity to embrace one which was somewhat milder." leo adds, that they took steps for maintaining permanent agreement between the two orders; and, after having mutually praised their congregations, they recommended to their companions who were present, reciprocal respect and friendship for each other; that dominic requested francis to give him his girdle, which was a cord with large knots; and, having obtained it after many entreaties, he wore it during the remainder of his life under his habit, as a bond and perpetual symbol of the charity which so intimately united them. francis having discussed with the cardinal protector all the affairs of his order, left perugia to return to st. mary of the angels. as he discoursed on the road with his companion leo, on the virtue of humility and entire abnegation of self, he said in a moment of fervor: "my dear brother, i do not believe myself to be a friar minor, and, in truth, i am not one, unless i can bear humbly and with entire tranquillity of mind, all that could happen to me under circumstances which i can figure to myself. i suppose, then, that my brethren came to seek me, with great respect and confidence, to assist at the general chapter which is about to be holden, and solicit me to preach at it. if, after having exhorted them in such terms as god shall have inspired me, they were to rise up against me, and manifest openly that they hold me in aversion, saying:--'we will no longer have you to govern us; we are ashamed of having such a man as you at our head, who has neither learning nor eloquence, who is simple and ignorant, with very little prudence and experience; therefore, in future, do not have the arrogance to call yourself our superior.' if they were to put other affronts upon me, and to drive me ignominiously from the assembly, i should not consider myself to be a true religious, unless i were to receive all this as patiently and with equal serenity of countenance as i should receive those who would load me with praise and honor." to this he added: "assuredly, places of honor are very dangerous to salvation, not only from the vainglory which is to be feared, but likewise from the government, which is very difficult; whereas, in opprobrium, there is nothing but merit to be acquired. if i am removed from the headship, i shall be exempt from being accountable to god for a great number of souls. prelature is a station of danger, and praise brings one to the very edge of the precipice. in an humble, lowly station, there is much to be gained. why, then, do we look to and prefer what is dangerous to what has so much more spiritual advantage, since it is for this that time is given to us?" these are sentiments which should be well considered by persons in every station of life, whether they aspire to honors, or fear the losing of them. the profound humility of st. francis does not admit of a doubt of his having gone through the trial which he here supposes; and even in putting it thus hypothetically, he strengthened in his mind the virtue requisite for supporting it in reality. these sorts of suppositions, which might be stumbling-blocks to the weak, are very useful to those who aspire to perfect humility. the friars minor assembled for the general chapter of their order at the convent of st. mary of the angels, or portiuncula, near assisi, at the feast of pentecost, and their number exceeded five thousand. this circumstance is truly amazing, particularly when it is recollected that some remained in their respective convents; that the order had only existed ten years since its institution; and that the novices had always been admitted by the founder himself, except since the chapter of the year , when he had given the provincial ministers power to receive them. it is nevertheless certain, that more than five thousand friars minor assisted at this celebrated chapter: the fact is attested by four of st. francis' companions, who were present at it; by st. bonaventure, who lived with them and by many others. what can be said on this subject, except that it pleased god to recall in some measure, by the rapid establishment of this order, the wonderful spread of the gospel by the preaching of the apostles? st. augustine says that the apostles were as dark clouds from whence lightning and thunder emanated; that, by their poverty and their simplicity, they shone in the eyes of the universe; that, by the powerful virtue and splendor of their admirable actions, they overthrew everything which was opposed to the empire of jesus christ, and, in a short time, christianized the world. may we not also say, that francis and his companions, men poor and simple, were a representation of the apostles; that jesus christ rendered them powerful and eminent in words and works, to bring back sinners to his empire, and that by them, in an inconceivably short period of time, an immense number of apostolic men was collected and formed who embraced the same institute, in order to exercise the same ministry? what assists us in comprehending that in ten years it had been possible to build a sufficient number of houses, to contain so many thousand men is, that they were poor and without any income. the religious of this chapter were lodged in huts made of matting, erected all round the portiuncula convent, from which this chapter has been called the chapter of mats. they were there separated from the world, but perfectly united among themselves, all lovers of watching and fasting after the example of their father; zealous in prayer and in the recital of psalms, in spiritual reading, and in readiness to execute all works of mercy, and having no other hope than that of the happiness of a future life. cardinal ugolino, as protector of the order, came to preside over the chapter, and all the religious went in procession before him. he opened the assembly on whitsunday the th of may: he officiated pontifically, and preached; and he deemed it his right to inspect the ranks of this holy army of the lord, in which he found everything in good order. these soldiers of jesus christ were not seen wandering about; but all were collected in groups, a hundred in one spot, sixty in another, more or less, and conversing on holy subjects, on their own salvation, or on that of their neighbours, and on the means of reforming the morals of a corrupt world. the cardinal, delighted with so interesting and unusual a scene, said to those who followed him, as jacob had when he met the angels on his way: "truly, this is the camp of god." we might also apply to it what balaam could not prevent himself from saying, when he saw the israelites encamped: "how beautiful are thy tabernacles, o jacob, and thy tents, o israel!" francis, as a general in his camp, went through all the tents; he encouraged his troops to fight valiantly the battles of the lord, assuring them of receiving assistance from on high, animating some, and fulfilling in every place the duties of a vigilant chief. he assembled all his brethren, and addressed them in an excellent discourse, of which the following embraces the subject: "we have promised great things; and we have been promised greater. let us keep the first, and let us sigh after the others: pleasure is of short duration; the penalty is eternal. sufferings are light; glory is infinite. many are called; but few are chosen. each one will receive according to his deserts." on this beautiful text he exhorted them, in the most forcible and moving terms, to the practice of virtue and to the duties of a religious life; urging them, above all things, to implicit obedience to our holy mother the church, to a contempt of the world, to purity of mind and body, to a love of holy poverty and humility, to charity, to concord and mildness, to continued watchfulness, and to an ardent zeal for the salvation of souls. he recommended to them to pray for all the faithful, and particularly for the exaltation of the holy roman church, and for the benefactors of the order. after which he positively forbade them to have any anxiety whatever for anything concerning the body, and he quoted to them these words of the psalmist: "cast thy care upon the lord and he shall sustain thee." he had conformed strictly to the rule he laid down, for he had made no provision for the chapter. st. dominic, who, out of friendship for st. francis, had come with six of his companions to this assembly and who heard this discourse, was fearful lest what he said and did was perhaps an exaggeration, and that it might seem to be tempting the lord, if some steps were not taken for procuring food for so great a multitude. but he was of a very different way of thinking shortly after when he saw arrive from assisi, perugia, spello, foligno, spoleto, and many more distant towns, ecclesiastics, laics, nobles, burgesses, and persons of every state of life who brought with them not only what was necessary for the subsistence of such vast numbers, but pressed forward to serve the religious themselves with an emulation of humility and charity. so marked an interposition of providence in behalf of these evangelical poor struck the patriarch of the friars preachers with astonishment; and it is believed that it suggested to him the intention which he carried into execution the year after, when he assembled the first general chapter of his order at bologna, in which it was resolved that the friars preachers should adopt the system of entire poverty, and consider it as the fundamental rule of their order, renouncing forever all property in land, or revenue arising therefrom, even what they had at toulouse, which the pope had confirmed to them by his first bull. in dying, he recommended to them this evangelical poverty as the foundation of their institute; and lest this foundation should be undermined by the prudence of the flesh, he forbade in the strongest terms, on pain of the curse of the almighty, and of his also, the introduction into the order of any temporal possessions. may evangelical poverty that made so strong an impression on the mind of st. dominic teach the faithful never to be mistrustful of the care of divine providence! however, we are not to look for, or expect miraculous assistance; this is not in the ordinary course of god's dispensations; but after doing all that depends on ourselves, provided there be no irregularity on our part, and that our desires are within the bounds of moderation, without any impatience as to the event, we may assure ourselves that, according to the words of the wise man: "no one hath hoped in the lord and hath been confounded." several prelates, and other persons of quality, who had been invited by cardinal ugolino to the chapter, as to a grand and admirable sight, had the curiosity to examine everything minutely. they saw the religious in their miserable huts, coarsely dressed, taking but a very small portion of nourishment, sleeping on mats spread on the earth with a log of wood for a pillow. they noticed at the same time that they were quite calm, that joy and concord were universal amongst them, and that they were entirely submissive to their saintly founder. admiring all these things, they said to each other: "this shows that the way to heaven is narrow, and that it is very difficult for the rich to enter into the kingdom of god. we flatter ourselves that we shall eke out our salvation in the enjoyment of all the comforts of life, having our ease in all things, while these people, to save their souls, deprive themselves of everything, mortify their bodies, and are notwithstanding not without great apprehension. we should like to die as they will, but we do not choose to live as they live." similar reflections converted a great number of persons, and more than five hundred took the habit of the friars minor during the chapter. the holy patriarch found that many of his religious submitted themselves to extraordinary mortifications, which either shortened their days or rendered them useless to the order by the illnesses which were the consequence. he therefor publicly forbade them, by the virtue of holy obedience, to make use of such means, and ordered all who had coats of mail, iron girdles, or other instruments of mortification, to leave them off and deliver them up to him. this was done, and some most extraordinary modes of inflicting self-punishment were discovered. the number of coats of mail and iron girdles which were delivered up were more than five hundred; they were put into a heap, and the patriarch thought proper to show them to the cardinal and his company, for their edification. they were astonished on witnessing so great a love of such penitential austerities, in men of such pure and holy lives. in their presence he again forbade his dear brethren indiscreet mortifications, which are injurious to the body; representing to them that they either hasten death, or throw the body into such a state of languor and weakness, as makes it unfit for spiritual exercises, or an impediment to the practice of good works. oh, fortunate and happy times, when it was necessary to check such failings! god made known to francis, in a revelation he had during the sitting of the chapter, that the prince of darkness, alarmed at the fervor of the new order, had collected thousands of demons, to concert together on the means of bringing it to ruin; and that one of them, more astute than the rest, had put forth an opinion which it had been decided should be acted upon. it was, not to attack the friars minor openly, but to have recourse to artifice; to induce them to receive into their society nobles, learned men, and youths. nobles, in order by their means to introduce effeminacy in which they had been brought up; learned men, who, proud of their learning, should have a contempt for humility; and youths, who, being weak and delicate, would greatly relax in the regular discipline. religion teaches us that there are demons, and that they are subordinate one to the other; that god, when it pleases him, permits them to tempt mankind, and even torment them corporally; and st. paul speaks of "the prince of the powers of this air." we know what satan did to holy job; and what our lord said to st. peter: "satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat;" and what he stated elsewhere: "when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he taketh with him seven spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there." thus we need have no difficulty in believing that the prince of darkness had collected such a number of demons against st. francis and his institute. st. gregory says, that they attack with greater violence those in whom they find a greater disposition to holiness, and that the principal demons are employed in the attacks on the bravest soldiers of jesus christ. what must be the wrath of these malignant spirits against the apostolical men, whose lives are wholly employed in effecting the salvation of souls! francis had already been made aware by the words of a young female who was possessed, as st. bonaventure relates, that the devils, irritated by the injury he did them, had assembled against him, and then he merely said, as paul did: "i am the stronger." but he was alarmed when he learnt from god himself the increase of their rage. he retired for two days to an oratory to pray for grace to be able to escape from their snares, and that he might be protected by good angels. his prayer gave him fresh courage; he returned to the chapter, and addressed his brethren with energy on the watchfulness with which it was incumbent on them to work out their salvation, without placing too much reliance on the holiness of their state of life, from which they must be apprehensive lest they should fall off by the machinations of their enemy. "you know," he said, "the examples we have; satan fell from heaven, and drew with him a number of the angels; he caused adam and eve to be driven from paradise; he prayed to be allowed to sift the apostles as wheat is sifted; and he did so with such effect, that one of them betrayed his master, another denied him, and all fled when he was captured." the saint then explained to them what god had made known to him of the designs of the devil; and in order that the enemy's malignity might fall on himself, he warned them to pay more attention in the reception of advices to the sentiments of the mind than to the advantages of birth; to be very careful that the learned whom they should admit, should be devoid of pride, and were fit to edify others by their humility, and to be careful that such as joined them in the flower of youth, should be informed of all that they would have to practice in future. for the holy man did not think it requisite, in consequence of satan's malice, to prohibit noblemen from joining his order, since their example has great influence, and the elevated sentiments which are found in that class, render them more fit to do great things for the service of god. he did not wish to drive away the learned, since learning is necessary for the exercise of the functions of religion, and since those men who join the knowledge of sound doctrine to an evangelical life, are most instructive teachers in the church, for the dissipation of error and the establishment of virtue. he also desired that they should receive such young men as should present themselves in the tenderest age, "because it is good for man to bear the yoke from his youth:" to leave the world, before having any knowledge of it, except through the lights of the church, and to offer themselves as pure victims, rather than to bring to him the remains of a heart stained by the passions; and, moreover, our saviour said to his disciples, who turned away the children who came to him: "suffer them, and forbid them not to come to me." we know that there are in the world censorious people who condemn the custom of permitting young persons to enter into a religious state; it would be easy to show, if it were not for fear of rendering this work too voluminous, that their arguments are based on a superficial foundation, and are contrary to the maxims of christianity; we therefore content ourselves with saying that at the council of trent, which was guided by the spirit of truth in its discipline, as well as in its dogmas and morality, permission was given to persons of either sex, to make profession as a religious at the full age of sixteen; that rule is authorized by the ordinances of all christian princes, and it therefore seems very extraordinary that any individuals should be rash enough to oppose their private opinions to so respectable an authority. francis, who was desirous of encouraging the fervor of his disciples, apprised them of what they had to fear, and anticipated the smallest inclinations to pride in them, by salutary humiliations. the cardinal protector having one day preached before all the religious of the chapter, and having concluded his sermon by bestowing on them considerable praise, the holy patriarch asked his permission to address the audience. he foretold to them, and represented in lively colors, all that was to happen to the order; the temptations to which they were to be exposed; the tribulations they were to suffer; the changes that would be brought in, and their decline. he reproached them with their laxity, and with their want of fervor in cooperating with the peculiar graces they had received from god; he spoke so energetically, that, in censuring their foolish obsequiousness, if such a fault they had, he covered them with confusion. the cardinal was somewhat mortified, and said:--"pray, why, brother, did you gainsay me, setting the imperfections of your brethren in opposition to the praises i had given them?" "my lord and my father," answered francis, "i did so, in order to preserve the substance of your praise. i was apprehensive that such praise being given by a person of your exalted rank, might inspire vanity into the minds of those in whom humility has not as yet thrown out deep roots." this affords great matter for reflection for those virtuous persons who voluntarily receive praise, at least when it is artfully administered; and for indiscreet flatterers, who expose virtue to a dangerous trial. what occurred on the following day, showed that the holy man had received from god the perfect means of appreciating men's minds. brother elias, who was the provincial for tuscany; brother john of strachia, who was provincial for bologna, and several others came to the cardinal protector and entreated him to tell francis, as from himself, that he ought to listen to the advice of his brethren, among whom there were many learned men, fully capable of governing; particularly as he himself was a simple and unread man, whose ill health did not permit him to bring their affairs into good order. they added, that respect ought to be paid to the ancient rules of st. basil, of st. augustine, and of st. benedict, and that minors should not differ so widely by a new rule and excessive severity, as if they wished to be better than their fathers. the cardinal took his time, and then proposed all these things to francis, as maxims which he deemed good for the government of the order. the saint being immediately made aware by the spirit of god, that these things were suggested by others, rose up from the place in which he had been seated with the cardinal, took him respectfully by the hand, and led him to the brethren who were assembled in chapter, and said: "my brethren, my brethren, god has called me by the way of simplicity and humility, in order that i might follow the folly of the cross: it is for his glory and my confusion, and for the security of your consciences i am about to tell you what he said to me:--'francis,' he said, 'i desire that you may be in the world a new little idiot, who shall preach by thy actions and by thy discourses the folly of the cross. do thou and thine follow me only, and not any other manner of life.' speak not to me therefore of any other rule, he added, for i shall not follow, nor prescribe any other than that which god has in his mercy given me; those who swerve from it, i fear, will feel the divine vengeance, and will be covered with confusion, when at length they shall be obliged once more to enter into this path, which god has shown me." then addressing himself to the cardinal, he said:--"my lord, these wise people, whom your lordship praises so much, would wish by their worldly prudence to deceive both god and you; but they deceive themselves, endeavoring to destroy what god has ordained for their salvation, through me, his unworthy servant. i attribute nothing to myself of what i do, or of what i say; i rely not on my own lights in the government of the order; i arrange everything by long prayers with our divine father, who governs it sovereignly, and who has made his will known to us by so many manifest signs, in order to bring to perfection the work he has commenced by so miserable a man as i am, for the salvation of souls, and the edification of our holy mother the church. those who prefer the wisdom of the world to the will of the lord, expose themselves manifestly to be lost." having spoken thus, francis retired. the cardinal, who admired the energy of his words, and the light which disclosed to him at once the most secret thoughts, said to the superiors who were abashed:--"my dear brethren, you have seen how the holy ghost has himself spoken by the mouth of this apostolical man; his words came forth as a two-edged sword, which has penetrated to the bottom of the heart. take care that you do not grieve the spirit of god; be not ungrateful for the favors he has done you. he is truly in this poor man, and manifests to you, through him, the marvels of his power; in listening to him, it is jesus christ that you hear; in despising him, it is jesus christ whom you despise. humble yourselves, therefore, and obey him, if it is your desire to please god, and not lose the fruit of your vocation; for i know by experience, that everything which either the devils or men are about to attempt against his order, is revealed to him. whatsoever may be said to him with good or bad intention, it is difficult to find him off his guard; neither my advice, nor that of any other person, will turn him from his purpose." the provincials who had given rise to this scene were moved, and submitted themselves to the will of the patriarch. among the religious who had congregated at the chapter, there were many who came to seek a remedy for the ill-treatment they had received in many places out of italy, which had its rise in two causes; the first was, that they had no authenticated letters to show that their institute had been approved by the church; the second was, that the pastors would not allow them to preach. they begged therefore that the pope might be solicited to give them written testimonials to certify that they had his approbation of their institution; and, moreover, that they should obtain from the holy father a privilege, in virtue of which they might preach wherever they thought proper, even without leave from the bishops. the holy founder could not hear this second article without indignation. "what my brethren" said he, "are you still devoid of understanding; and do you not know the will of god? it is his pleasure that we should gain the good will of our superiors by our respect for them, and by humility; and then by word and good example, those who are under them. when the bishops see that you live holily, and that you do not encroach on their authority, they themselves will apply to you to work for the salvation of the souls which are committed to their care; they themselves will collect their flocks to listen to you, and to imitate you. let it be our sole privilege to have no privilege calculated to swell our pride; to give ourselves a confidence which shall be to the prejudice of others, and be the cause of contentions. let us ask nothing of the holy see but what is calculated to aid us in serving god, in extending the faith, and in gaining souls under the good pleasure of the prelates, without causing any disturbance among the people." some represented that they had found many of the heads of the parochial clergy so harsh, that they had been unable to mollify them, either by entreaties, or by labor, by submissiveness or good example, so as to obtain leave to preach to their parishioners, or to receive from them any corporal assistance; to this francis replied: "my brethren, we are sent to the aid of priests, to make good that in which they may be deficient. each one will receive his reward, not according to the degree of his authority, but in proportion to his labors. know, then, that what is most agreeable to god is, to work for the salvation of souls, and that we shall best succeed in this by living in concord with the priests than by living separately from them; if they throw obstacles in the way, god, to whom all vengeance belongs, will give them in his good time what is their due. be therefore submissive to ecclesiastical superiors, in order to avert, as much as may be in your power, any jealousies. if you are children of peace, you will soon ingratiate yourselves with the clergy and the people, and this will be more acceptable to god than if you gained over the people, and thereby gave scandal to the clergy. hide the faults of the priests, make good what they are deficient in, and be only in consequence the more humble." the religious of st. francis must not be surprised if they, even in these days, meet with opposition in the exercise of their holy ministries. it is an occurrence which the similarity of men may at all times bring about; and which st. paul experienced more than any other in the course of his ministry. but let them be careful to put in practice the advice of their father, in order that they may be able to say in truth with the apostle:--"we have injured no man" and, finally, the advice which he gave them must induce us to notice his moderation and his discretion, in an age when the church had reason to renew the laments of one of the prophets against the pastors of israel. he judged it proper, by the advice of the cardinal protector, to procure apostolic letters to make known the approbation his institute had received; and he obtained them from the pope, who was then at viterbo. these were the first which were given to the order of friars minor: their contents are as follows: honorius, bishop, servant of the servants of god, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, deacons, archdeacons, and other superior ecclesiastics-- "as our dear son, brother francis and his companions, have renounced the vanities of the world, and embraced a state of life which the roman church has justly approved; and, following the example of the apostles, are about to go into different parts to announce the word of god; we beg and exhort you in our lord, and we command you by these apostolical letters, to receive as catholic and faithful, the brothers of this order, the bearers of these letters who may apply to you, to be favorable to them, and to treat them with kindness, for the honor of god, and out of consideration for us. given this d of the ides of june, the third year of our pontificate." many cardinals and other illustrious persons added their letters of recommendation to those of the pope, particularly cardinal ugolino, the protector of the order, who testified by a document addressed to all prelates, which certified the intimate knowledge he had of the virtues of the founder and of his religious, and the great fruit that was to be expected from them for the propagation of the faith, and the benefit of the whole church. they made a great number of authenticated copies of these letters, to give them to those friars whom francis had resolved to send in all directions, even into the most distant lands. three things were decreed at this general chapter. the first was, that on every saturday a solemn mass should be celebrated in honor of the immaculate blessed virgin mary. this glorious title of immaculate, which the general councils of the seventh and eighth centuries, and the ancient fathers of the church, have given to mary, has been used by the council of trent, which has declared in its decree on the subject of original sin, "that it is not its intention to include therein the blessed and immaculate virgin mary, mother of god." the use which the friars minor made of it in , shows clearly that they adopted, as did their sainted patriarch, the common opinion of the greek church, which was already spread in various parts of the latin church, in honor of the conception of the blessed virgin, because they thought it wholly pure and exempt from the stain of original sin. their successors have always, with admirable zeal, maintained this opinion, which god in so far blessed, that they have now the advantage and consolation of seeing the institution of the feast of the immaculate conception in the whole church, and of knowing that what was at one time only a pious opinion is now a dogma. it is proper to notice here, that at the head of the friars minor, who supported the proposition of the immaculate conception, was the celebrated john duns scotus, so respected in the church for his penetrating genius, for the solidity of his doctrine, and for his singular piety. he silenced his opponents, and his success was so manifested that all considered him to have had the special aid of the blessed virgin, and his reasonings were so convincing that the university of paris admitted them, and declared in favor of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, which it has maintained ever since. in the fifteenth century, the faculty of theology passed a solemn decree on this point, in which it declared that in consonance with the opinions of its predecessors, and in order to oppose the enemies of the blessed virgin, it bound itself by oath to maintain the proposition that the mother of god was preserved from original sin, framing a law, not to receive any doctor who should not take this oath; which practice was continued till the dogma was declared in , when it was no longer necessary. this is the pious triumph of all the sons of st. francis who, in gratitude for so singular a privilege, honor the blessed virgin as the patroness and protectress of their order, under the title of her immaculate conception, and by celebrating the festival thereof with every possible solemnity. the second statute directed, that express mention should be made of the names of st. peter and st. paul, in the prayer, "protege nos domine, etc.," and in another which begins with these words--"exaudi nos deus," etc., in memory of what had been revealed to st. francis, that these apostles interceded powerfully with god for his institute. this is practised by the whole church since innocent iv revised and reformed the roman breviary, through aymon, an englishman, who was the fifth general of the order of friars minor. in the third statute it was said that poverty should be apparent in everything, in the convents which they should build; that the churches should be small and low, and that the walls of the rest of the buildings should be of wood or mud. some difficulties were started to this; many represented that in their provinces wood was dearer than stone, and that walls of masonry, if they were not too high, would better denote poverty, because they would be solid and not compel frequent repair. the holy founder would not argue this matter with them; for it is remarked that not to give rise to any dispute, and not to give scandal to the weak, he often condescended to the opinions of others in similar matters. nevertheless he recommended to them all, not to receive either churches or houses which were not in conformity to holy poverty which was their rule. it was not possible always to follow out his intentions. the prelates and princes who were greatly attached to his order had beautiful convents built, which his religious could not avoid receiving; and st. bonaventure even says that a numerous community which has different exercises to perform, requires large houses, although care should be taken that holy poverty should be apparent throughout, and that superfluity should not preponderate over what is reasonably necessary. the chapter being ended, francis, following the example of the apostles, divided the world among his brethren, in order to bring it all in subjection to the empire of jesus christ. the first mission to germany had not been successful. those who had been sent thither by the preceding chapter, not knowing the language, and answering badly the questions put to them, were suspected from their poor and unusual habit to belong to those heretics who were prosecuted in italy, in consequence of which they were cruelly ill-treated and driven away. the recital which they gave on their return made germany so unpopular among the brethren that they said that none ought to go there but such as aspired to martyrdom, and that many prayed to heaven to be preserved from the ferocity of the germans. francis did not think proper to send any more there till such time as he should have received some novices from thence who might go there with others; but he sent some into hungary. as soon as the several missions had been fixed upon, the missionaries prepared to set out. before we give an account of st. francis' voyage to the levant, we think it desirable to give an abridgment of what his children did in various parts of the world, because the principal glory is due to him, and these proceedings naturally belong to the history of his life. benedict of arezzo embarked with his companions for greece, where their preaching, backed by the holiness of their lives, and confirmed by miracles, produced abundance of fruit for the salvation of souls, and procured so many houses for the order that in a very short time it was formed into an entire province, and was called romania. giles and electe, who anxiously aspired to martyrdom, and who were only lay-brothers, had appeared to st. francis to be more fit to be sent to the saracens than even those of the clergy, and they hastened to go into africa with several others. what chiefly animated the zeal of brother giles, as the author of his life remarks, was his having heard that the saracens treated with great cruelty those christians who spoke ill of the law of mahomet. when he reached tunis with a party of missionaries, he generously preached the faith in public, and this continued for some time. a person who was looked up to among the saracens for his great wisdom, having come forth from his retreat, told the people that they ought to put to the sword all those infidels who spoke against the law of their prophet. giles and his companions were delighted at the prospect of an early martyrdom; but the christians with whom they had their domicile, fearing lest they might be included in the massacre, took away these preachers and compelled them to go on board a vessel in the harbor, and did not permit them again to land. as they did not cease addressing the mahometans who crowded to the sea-shore, with a view to induce them to embrace the faith of jesus christ,--their desire to sacrifice their lives for his glory being so ardent,--the christian residents hastened to have them removed to europe. thus seeing that even their fellow-believers were opposed to their views, they returned to italy. electe was more fortunate; during some years he performed the functions of an apostle in another town in africa, where he received the crown of martyrdom. a body of saracens rushed upon him while he was preaching, upon which he fell on his knees, grasped the rule with both hands, asked pardon for his faults from god and from his companions, and then presented his neck to the infidels who took away his life. this did not happen till after the death of st. francis. he had entered the order when very young, and had lived in it with great austerity, always wearing a coat of mail on his bare body, so that he prepared himself for the martyrdom of blood by the martyrdom of penance, as was recommended to the christians in time of persecution. those who went into spain with john parent proceeded with so much speed that ten of them arrived at saragossa by the feast of the assumption; a very short time after their departure, bernard de quintavalle, who was sent into this kingdom after the chapter of had established two convents, the one at toledo, the other at carrion de los condes, a town in the kingdom of leon. some of his companions had been admitted at lerida, and at balaguer, in catalonia, under very extraordinary circumstances, which are omitted not to be too prolix. zachary and gautier, who had been sent into portugal, had had much to suffer in the beginning; but queen urraqua, the wife of alphonso ii, who then reigned, was a most pious princess. she, having caused their institute to be examined by very learned men, and having had full assurance of the holiness of their lives, now obtained leave from the king for their being received into his states, and permission for their building convents. a house was given them, with a chapel attached to it, of st. anthony, near coimbra, where the court then was, and subsequently one on a larger scale at lisbon. princess sancia, the daughter of sancho i, and sister of alphonso ii, highly praised by historians for her piety and chastity, protected zachary, and gave him a third house, called of st. catharine, at some distance from the town of alenquer, which was her own; but in consequence of the distance and the insalubrity of the air, she some years after converted her own palace into a convent, which she gave to the friars minor. gautier, one of bernard's companions, who had made many great conversions by his virtues and his miracles, near guimaraens, had built a convent not very far from that town. while at the convent of st. catharine, a very queer thing occurred, which we have not thought right to omit here on account of the instruction it contains. one of the ladies, in waiting on the princess whose name was maria garcia, often came to have some pious conversation with one of the holy religious, who was very averse to receiving her, because he feared the company of females. one day when he was at prayer, she came to the church, and expressed a wish to see him, but he refused to go to her. the historian says that in order to obtain what she wished for, she did what women generally do under such circumstances, she became more importunate, and cried bitterly, and protested that it would give her great pain if she might not speak to the holy man. he therefore came, to get rid of her importunities; but he brought some straw in one hand, and some fire in the other; he set the straw on fire in her presence, and then said to her: "although, madam, all your conversations are pious, i refuse to hold them with you in private, because what you see has happened to the straw, is what religious persons have to fear may occur to them if they have private and familiar intercourse with women; and at least they lose the fruits of their holy communications with god in prayer." the lady blushed, retired, and troubled him no more. st. jerome, who so strongly recommended to ecclesiastics and religious to avoid conversations with the female sex would certainly have approved of this action. john parent arrived at saragossa in the month of august, , with nine of his brethren who were followed by many others soon after; he addressed himself to the bishop and to the magistrates who assembled to hear him. he explained to them who francis of assisi was, his vocation, his mission, his mode of life, his institute, the approbation given to his rule by pope innocent iii and honorius iii, and the testimonials given to him by several cardinals. he remarked to them that the new order had been exceedingly multiplied in a very few years, and that they had seen more than five thousand religious at the general chapter which had been lately assembled in the neighborhood of assisi, which was considered to be miraculous; that their father had sent a great number of his children into all parts of the world to combat vice and encourage virtue, which circumstance should be considered as a bountiful effect of divine providence towards his church, in such calamitous times. he concluded by saying: "if our institute is agreeable to you, we earnestly entreat you to give us some small place in which we may recite the divine office, and fulfil the other ministries which our founder has recommended to us. have no anxiety as to our subsistence, for we solicit no part of your goods; we content ourselves with very little; we are poorly clad; work and questing furnish us with all that we require." all the assembly admired the spirit of humility which prevailed through this discourse, and the reading of the papal bull, with the testimonials of the cardinals, were proofs that nothing had been set forth but what was true. they conceived such a liking to the order, that they took immediate measures for giving to john parent and his companions a dwelling of which they took possession on the th of august. the order of st. francis, as well as that of st. dominic, began from that time to spread through all spain. on all sides preachers of the two orders were found, and new convents were erected, as luke, bishop of tuy, a contemporary author, mentions in his chronicle when he speaks of the marvels of the reign of st. ferdinand, king of castile and leon. it would clearly appear that both the one and the other were in the city of leon about that time, since the same author, in his excellent work against the albigenses, says that they exerted themselves with great zeal and energy against the heretics, who, to seduce the faithful, published pretended miracles which they asserted to have been performed by the bones of one arnold a man of their sect who had been dead sixteen years, and they also accused the good religious who exposed their impostures of heresy. such is the mode adopted by certain sectarians; they endeavored to establish their false doctrine by fictitious miracles; while they insolently refused credence to those which the catholic church admitted as certain; and all have sufficient audacity to treat as heretics the orthodox who prove them to be heretics themselves. the mission to france was equally successful with that of spain. pacifico and his companions who began it in , were exposed to hunger, cold, and all other kinds of inconveniences, which men are exposed to suffer when out of their own country, unknown, and destitute of everything, and moreover living an unusual and extraordinary sort of life. they went to that office of the night which is called matins in those churches in which it is said at midnight, as is still the custom at notre dame, in paris. if there was no service in the places where they were, they then prayed by themselves at that hour, and they passed the whole night at the foot of the altar; after which, if no one offered them a meal, they went questing from door to door. the remainder of the day was spent in the hospitals, making the beds of the lepers and other sick, dressing their wounds, and rendering them such other services of humility and charity as they had learned from the example and instruction of their father francis. so saintly a life attracted the attention of all, gained their esteem, caused many to embrace the institution, and procured for them many establishments, notably the one at paris. angelo of pisa, one of the missioners sent by st. francis, was the first warden of the parisian convent. this convent soon became a college, where young men, from all parts of the world came to study, and, subsequently, to take out degrees in the university. several great men have, in the last five hundred years, rendered this college illustrious. pacifico, whom st. francis had appointed provincial of the french missions, sent some of the religious into different parts of the kingdom, where they were well received. he went with some companions into hainault, and other provinces of the low countries, where, by the liberality and under the protection of the countess of flanders, joanna of constantinople, he caused many houses to be built. thomas de chantpre, a canon regular of st. austin, and subsequently a religious of the order of st. dominic, states, as an eye-witness, a very marvellous thing which deserves to be recorded in the life of st. francis, since it occurred during his lifetime, relative to his order. at thorouth, a town in flanders, a child of five years of age, whose name was achaz, of a good family, having seen, in , the habit of the friars minor, begged his parents to give him a similar one. his entreaties and tears induced them to gratify him. he was therefore habited as a friar minor, with a coarse cord and bare feet, not choosing to have any money, not even to touch it, and he practised as much as was in his power the exercises of the religious. among his companions he was seen to act as preacher, cautioning them against evil, exciting them to virtue by the fear of the pains of hell, and by the hopes of the glories of heaven; teaching them to say the lord's prayer, and the angelic salutation, and to honor god by genuflections. he reproved such as did anything wrong in his presence, even his own father, if he heard him swear, or saw him in a state of inebriety. "my father," he would say, with tears in his eyes, "does not our cure tell us that those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of god?" being one day at church with his mother, who was dressed in a handsome gown of a flame color, he pointed out to her a crucifix, as a censure on her vanity, and warned her to be careful that the color she wore did not cause her to fall into the flames of hell, which warning had so great an effect that his mother never after wore anything but the plainest dress. such a precocious mind, with so much matured wisdom and piety, was universally admired, and every one took pleasure in seeing and listening to this amiable child. god took him from this world before he had attained his seventh year. in his last illness, he confessed, and solicited most earnestly to be allowed to receive the body of christ. the cure not venturing to comply with his request, on account of his tended age, although his reason was so mature and his holiness so manifest, he raised his hands to heaven, and said, in tender accents:--"my lord jesus christ, thou knowest that all that i wish for in this world is to receive thee. i begged for thee, and have done what i could; i hope with entire confidence that thou will not deprive me of the happiness of possessing thee." he then consoled and exhorted his parents and others who surrounded him, after which he gave up his pure soul to god, praising him, and ejaculating prayers to him. the ocular witness adds two circumstances which are very remarkable; the first is, that the religious habit which this holy child wore disappeared, and could never afterwards be found. the second, that the friars minor who, as well as himself, went to pray at his grave, could not go through the _de profundis_ which they had commenced, notwithstanding all the efforts that they made to do so; by which they understood, that so pure a soul stood in no need of prayer; and, no doubt, they only endeavored to offer up some under the impression that a mind so early in other respects matured, might have been capable of contracting some stain. francis, having despatched his disciples to the several missions allotted to them, as has been said, prepared to go himself to the levant, with a zeal equal to that with which he had inspired his brethren, when cardinal ugolino, the protector of the order, entered into discussion with him on the subject of the government of the establishment of st. damian's, in which clare presided, and of the other monasteries of females which had been commenced on that model. cardinal ugolino, by the advice and authority of the pope leaving to francis the guidance of the monastery of st. damian of assisi, took upon himself the direction of all the others who had adopted that rule, and nominated as visitor-general under his orders, a prudent religious of the order of citeaux, called ambrose. he gave them the rule of st. benedict, with constitutions which wading gives at length. we do not transcribe them here, because, in the year , st. francis gave them another rule, which will be spoken of later, and which is the only one which ought to be called the rule of st. clare or of the second order. the holy patriarch being now about to set out in order to preach the gospel to the mahometans of the levant, resolved to send to those who were in the west, some of his brethren. he chose six for morocco: vidal, a very prudent and pious religious, whom he nominated superior; berard de carbio, from the vicinity of narni, who was well versed in the arabian language; peter, of st. geminien, and otho, who were in priests' orders; and ajut, and accurse, who were lay-brethren.--having sent for them he spoke as follows:-- "my dear children, it is god who has commanded me to send you amongst the saracens, to make known his faith, and refute the law of mahomet. i shall go in a different direction to work for the conversion of the same infidels, and thus i shall send preachers over the whole earth. prepare yourselves, therefore, to fulfil the will of the lord. to render yourselves worthy of it, take great care to preserve peace and concord among yourselves, as the ever-subsisting ties of charity. avoid envy which was the first cause of the loss of mankind. be patient in tribulations, and humble in success; which is the means of coming off victorious in all encounters. imitate our lord jesus christ in his poverty, chastity, and obedience; he was born poor, he lived poor, and it was in the bosom of poverty that he died. to manifest how highly he loved chastity, he chose to be born of a virgin, he took virgins for his first soldiers, he kept, and counselled virginity, and he died in presence of two virgins. as to obedience, he never ceased from practising it from his birth to his death on the cross. place your hopes in the lord, he will guide and assist you. take our rule with you, and a breviary, in order that you may be punctual in saying the divine office, and be always submissive to brother vidal, your superior. my children, although i am greatly pleased to see the good-will with which you embrace this undertaking, yet our separation is painful to my heart from the sincere affection i bear you; but the commands of our lord are to be preferred to my own feelings; i entreat you to have the passion of our lord jesus christ always present to your mind; it will strengthen you and powerfully animate you to suffer for his glory." these apostolic men, encouraged by this address of their father, replied that they were ready to go into any country and expose themselves to the severest labors for the interests of the faith; that he need not hold out an example for them, by going himself among the infidels, as if his word was not sufficient; that they did not think his orders too strict, and that they expected assistance from above for carrying them into execution; but that they required his prayers and blessing in order to gather some fruit in unknown lands, among barbarous people, enemies of the christian name. "he," rejoined the saint, with great animation, "who sends you, it is he who will take care of you; you are under his protection, under the protection of god; you belong no more to me from this moment; i tear you from my bosom to send you as his laborers." they threw themselves on their knees, kissed his hands and prayed for his last blessing which he gave them weeping, in the following terms:--"may the blessing of god the father be upon you, as it descended on the apostles; may it strengthen you, guide you, and console you in your sufferings. fear not; the lord is with you, as an invincible warrior; go, in the name of god who sends you." we shall speak of their voyage when we come to relate the martyrdom they suffered in morocco, on the th of january, . at length, francis, anxious for the crown of martyrdom in which he had been twice disappointed, confided the government of his order during his absence to brother elias, the provincial of tuscany, and set out on his voyage to syria with twelve companions, the principal of whom were peter of catania, barbaro sabbatino, leonard of assisi, and illuminus of rieti. in the marches of ancona through which they passed, in order to embark at the last-named place, a young man came to solicit to be received into the society of friars minor, and the saint said to him: "if you have the intention of joining the poor of jesus christ, go and bestow upon the poor all that thou hast." the postulant went away and gave all he had to his parents whom he loved very much, without giving any to the poor. he then returned and said how he had disposed of his property. francis censured his conduct in the strongest terms, considering him as a man who would be totally useless, and nowise fit for evangelical perfection. "tender brother," he said to him (for so he called all those whom he considered of no real value), "tender brother, go thy ways, you have neither left your country nor your kindred; you have given what you had to your parents, and disappointed the poor; you do not deserve to be received into the company of those who make profession of holy poverty. you commenced by the flesh, which is an unstable foundation for a spiritual edifice." this carnal and animal man returned to his parents, resumed his property, and rather than give it to the poor, he gave up the good purpose he had entertained. the love of his relations did as much disservice to this young man as the love of riches did to him whom our saviour desired to sell all he had and give unto the poor. perhaps also he had an intention of finding a resource in what he gave to his relations, which is contrary to the entire renouncing of everything which jesus christ requires. for which reason, when st. bonaventure relates this circumstance, he says, that st. francis only admitted those into his order who gave up all they had, and did not in any manner keep anything back. the man of god received many novices on his way. many of his brethren in the vicinity accompanied him as far as ancona, to witness his departure, as sorrowful, as had been the faithful of miletus and ephesus, who accompanied st. paul embarking for jerusalem, although he had not told them, as the apostle did, that they would see him no more. the arrival of this holy band was so agreeable to the magistrates at ancona, that they immediately allotted a spot for the erection of a convent, and had it commenced at their own expense. it was so large that when francis returned from palestine he caused it to be reduced out of love for holy poverty, and then he gave the model of a church which is still extant. the captain of a vessel who was about to take succor to the christian forces before damietta, was so good as to receive him, one of twelve, on board his ship. all the religious who were there were desirous of going to sea with him, and each one vied for the preference, not only that they might accompany the patriarch, but that they might obtain the crown of martyrdom, which they ardently wished for; but not to mortify any of them, and to show no preferences, he prudently and with the mildness of a common father, addressed them as follows:-- "my very dear children, there is not one of you, from whom i should wish to be separated; i wish you would all accompany me on the voyage i am about to make; but it would have been unreasonable of me to ask the captain of the vessel to take you all. on which account, and that none should have reason to complain, nor to be jealous of the others, i will not make the selection; it must be made by god." and thereupon calling a child who happened to be on board, he said: "the lord has often made his will known by the mouth of children, and i have no doubt he will do the same now; let us ask this child, and let us credit what he shall say; god will speak through him." then asking the child, whether it was god's will that all the religious who were with him should put to sea and make the voyage with him? the child replied with a firm voice: "no, it is not god's will." he then again asked which of them among those who were there present he should take? the child, inspired by the almighty, selected eleven, pointing them out with his finger, and going up to them as he named them. the religious, full of astonishment, were all satisfied: those who were destined to remain behind as well as those who were selected to accompany him. they fell on their knees, received the blessing of their common father, and separated after having given to each other the kiss of peace. francis embarked with his eleven companions; they weighed anchor, and shortly after they reached the island of cyprus, where they remained a couple of days. in this interval, one of the religious committed a fault which was soon atoned for. in a gust of passion he made use of some harsh expression to one of his brethren before the others, and before another person who might have been scandalized at the event. reflecting on what he had done, and being immediately sorry for it, he took up some dung, and, returning to the spot, he put it into his mouth, and began chewing it, saying: "it is but just that he who has offended his brother by his speech, should have his mouth filled with filth." this act of penance was fully satisfactory to him who had been offended, and made such impression on a gentleman who had witnessed the scene, that he offered himself and all he possessed to the service of the order. from cyprus, francis proceeded to acre, from whence he sent his companions, two and two, into such parts of syria in which missionaries were most wanted. he himself preached for some days in the vicinity of the town, where he did some good, and then embarked again with illuminatus to join the army of the crusaders who were besieging damietta. we shall now speak of the crusade, and of this siege. at the council of lateran, which was held in , pope innocent iii represented so energetically the miserable state to which the christians in the holy land were reduced under the domination of the saracens, that in order to deliver them from so cruel a slavery, the council ordered the assembly of a similar crusade to that which had been ordered two centuries before, for the same object. the bishops proclaimed it everywhere with great ardor, and the pope, to give it greater weight, went himself into tuscany to preach it after having published it at rome. this great pope, dying on the th of july, , honorius iii, who succeeded him, imitated his zeal, and wrote to the princes and prelates of all europe, and sent legates everywhere, to urge the execution of what had been decreed in the council of lateran. the success was as prompt as it was fortunate, so that at the time fixed, that is, on the st of june, , an infinity of crusaders, principally from the north of europe, were in readiness to set out for palestine, by land and by sea. after some expeditions, the crusaders thought that, instead of operations in palestine, to which they had hitherto confined themselves, it would be advisable to carry the war into egypt, because it was thence that the sultans sent large armies into the holy land against the christians; and this had been the opinion of pope innocent at the lateran council. it was therefore decided to lay siege to damietta, the strongest town in egypt, and from its situation the key of that kingdom. the first of those who sailed arrived before the place on the th of may; they disembarked, and intrenched themselves without meeting with any resistance, and when the remainder of the army arrived, the attack commenced. the siege lasted nearly eighteen months, with enormous losses, yet some astonishing acts of bravery were witnessed. coradin, (or moaddam) the sultan of damascus, came with an army much more numerous than that of the crusaders, and besieged them in their intrenchments; and meledin, (or melic camel) his brother, sultan of egypt or of babylon, having brought an equally numerous army, they drew up their troops in order of battle, on the last day of july, , in the early morning, and appeared before the crusaders' lines, which they attacked on several points. the battle was obstinately contested; it lasted till night, and the saracens seemed to have the victory, but it was torn from them, chiefly by the indomitable bravery of the french, supported by the grand master of the temple, and the teutonic knights, who drove the infidels far from their lines with great slaughter. dissensions then arose between the cavalry and infantry of the crusaders. they accused each other of cowardice, a reproach very grating to military men; the consequence was, that a turbulent rivalry ensued, in order to prove which had the greatest courage, and they compelled john de brienne, king of jerusalem, who commanded the army, to lead them to the enemy and offer him battle. it was at this moment that francis arrived at the camp, having no other arms than those of faith. he said to his companion, with deep sighs:-- "the lord has revealed to me, that if they come to blows, the christians will be worsted. if i tell them this, i shall be considered an idiot;-- and if i do not tell it, my conscience will reproach me; what do you think of it?" his companion, whose name was illuminatus, and who indeed was filled with light, replied:--"my brother, do not let the opinions of men guide you; it is not the first time that you have been looked upon as one bereaved of sense. clear your conscience, and fear god more than the world." francis immediately went and warned the christians not to fight, and foretold them that if they did, they would be beaten. minds were, however, too much excited to listen to sound reason; the words of the saint were taken for ravings. on the th of august, when the heat was overpowering, the whole of the christian army left their lines and offered battle. the enemy at first retired, in order to draw the crusaders to an extensive plain, where there was no water, and when he saw that thirst and fatigue had caused their ranks to be broken, he turned suddenly and fell upon the cavalry of the right wing which he took by surprise; it was broken and dispersed; its rout caused the infantry which was supported by it, to flee, and the whole army would have been cut to pieces had not the king, followed by the knights of the three orders of french, flemish and english, and other troops, placed themselves in front and stopped the saracens who were pursuing the fugitives and effecting an awful retreat. the christians lost on this occasion near six thousand men, besides prisoners, among whom were many of considerable note. this loss was the accomplishment of what francis had foretold; and it showed, adds st. bonaventure, "that his valuable advice ought not to have been disregarded, since, according to the words of the holy scriptures, 'the soul of a holy man discovereth sometimes true things, more than seven watchmen that sit on a high place to watch.'" the faults of the crusaders, and the ill-successes which often attended their measures, have given room to minds disposed to censure, to condemn all wars undertaken against infidels, or heretics. nevertheless, the crusades, during two centuries, were suggested by the sovereign pontiffs, and by the councils of the church, proclaimed by most holy personages, and authorized by their miracles; led by christian princes of all europe, by many of our kings, by a saint louis, by men full of religious zeal, such as godfrey of bouillon, and simon, count of montfort. is there not the greatest rashness in including such men as these in one sweeping condemnation? if all the crusaders had not equally pure intentions; if debauchery insinuated itself into their armies, if prudence did not always regulate their proceedings; if sometimes even success did not crown their best-concerted measures, are these sufficient grounds for blaming the enterprise, or, are we only to judge of measures by the event? saint bernard preached the crusade which was decided on in the year , of which louis vii, king of france, had first formed the plan, and of which pope eugenius iii, and the bishops of france approved. the preaching of the holy abbot was publicly supported by a prodigious number of miracles, which even his humility could not dissemble. two powerful armies, the one commanded by the emperor conrad iii, the other by the king of france, with the princes and nobility of the states, were calculated to inspire the infidels with terror. nevertheless, from various causes, nothing could have been more unfortunate than the issue of this war; and, as the loss of these two armies was felt through the whole of france and through the whole of germany, where st. bernard had preached, and promised glorious success, public indignation fell upon him, and he was treated as a false prophet. what he wrote to pope eugenius in his justification, must be considered as an answer to all those who, even in these days, condemn the crusades, the result of which was disastrous. he says, that moses, in god's name, had solemnly promised the people of israel to lead them into a very fertile land, and that god had even confirmed that promise by splendid miracles; that, nevertheless, all those who went out of egypt perished in the desert without entering into the land of promise, in punishment of the sins of the people during the journey; that it cannot be said that this punishment was a contradiction of the promise, because the promises which god, in his goodness, makes to man, never prejudice the rights of his justice; and this reasoning the saint applies to the crimes committed in the armies of the crusades. this digression may, perhaps, appear long, but we could not dispense with it for the honor of the religious and of the preceding ages; and, besides, it is connected with the life of st. francis, who certainly approved of the crusades, although, by a supernatural inspiration, he blamed a particular enterprise of the crusaders which had the unfortunate issue which he had foretold. the ardor of his charity which urged him to labor for the conversion of the saracens, and to expose himself to martyrdom, induced him to take the resolution to present himself to the sultan of egypt. "we saw," says james de vitry, "brother francis, the founder of the order of the friars minor, a simple and unlearned man, though very amiable and beloved by god and man, who was respected universally. he came to the christian army, which was lying before damietta, and an excess of fervor had such an effect upon him, that, protected solely by the shield of faith, he had the daring to go to the sultan's camp to preach to him and to his subjects the faith of jesus christ." the two armies were in sight of each other, and there was great danger in going from one to the other, particularly as the sultan had promised a handsome reward in gold to any one who should bring him a christian's head. but this would not deter such a soldier of jesus christ as was francis, who, far from fearing death, eagerly sought it. he betook himself to prayer, from which he arose full of strength and confidence, saying with the prophet: "since thou art with me, o lord, i will fear no evil, though i should walk in the midst of the shadow of death;" and he set out for the infidel camp. two sheep which he met on setting out, gave him much joy. he said to his companion: "my brother, have confidence in the lord, the word of the gospel is being fulfilled in us, which says: 'behold i send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.'" in fact, only a very little farther on, some saracens rushed upon them, as wolves upon sheep, insulted and beat them, and bound them. francis said: "i am a christian, lead me to your master;" and god permitted that he should be so led to comply with the desire of his servant. the sultan meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? francis answered with courageous firmness: "we are not sent by men, but it is the most high who sends us, in order that i may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the gospel." he immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of one god in three persons, and the lord jesus christ, the saviour of mankind. then was seen verified what our saviour said to his apostles. "for i will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist or gainsay." meledin became so mild and tractable, that, admiring the courage of francis, he listened quietly to him for some days, and invited him to stay with him. the man of god said: "if you and your people will be converted, i will remain for the love of jesus christ. and if you hesitate between his law and that of mahomet, let a great fire be lit up, and i will go into it with your priests, in order that you may see thereby which is the faith to follow." "i do not believe," replied the sultan, "that any of our priests would go into the fire, or suffer any torments for his religion." he answered thus because he perceived that as soon as the fire was proposed, one of the eldest of the priests, one who was of the most considerable of them, got quickly away. "if you will promise me," added francis, "that yourself and your people will embrace the christian faith, in case i come forth from the fire safe and sound, i will enter it alone; if i am burnt let it be imputed to my sins; but if god preserve me, you will then acknowledge that jesus christ is the true god and saviour of mankind." meledin acknowledged that he dared not accept this challenge, lest it should be the cause of a sedition; but he offered him rich presents which the servant of god despised from his heart as so much dirt. such entire disengagement from the good things of this world inspired the prince with such veneration and confidence that he entreated the saint to receive his presents, and to distribute them among the poor christians or to the churches for the salvation of his soul. francis who had a loathing of money, and who did not find in the sultan any groundwork of religion, persisted in his refusal of these offers. he, moreover, thought it was time to leave the infidels when he saw no prospect of effecting any good, and where he had no further chance of gaining the crown of martyrdom; and he learnt by a revelation that what he intended was conformable to the will of god. the sultan, on his part, fearing that some of his people might be moved by the discourse of francis, and, being converted, might join the christian army, caused him to be escorted with marks of consideration to the christian camp before damietta, after having said to him in private: "pray for me, that god may make known what religion is most agreeable to him, in order that i may embrace it." was it not a sight worthy of god, worthy of angels, and of men, to see on one side francis, clothed in sackcloth, pale, emaciated, disfigured by his penitential austerities, pass through an army of infidels, and present himself boldly before their sovereign, speak to him against the law of their prophet, and exhort him to acknowledge the divinity of jesus christ? and, on the other side, the sultan of egypt, the mortal enemy of the christians, elated by the victory he had just gained over them, and anxious to shed more of their blood, suddenly lose all his ferocity, become mild and tractable, listen attentively to the poor one of jesus christ, endeavor to retain him, offer him large presents, admire his poverty, his disinterestedness, his courage, ask the aid of his prayers, that he might know and embrace the true religion, and send him back to the christian camp with honor? how certain it is that the religion of jesus christ will never be made more respectable and amiable to the infidels than by the practice of the exalted virtues which it teaches, and by which it became established in the world. another scene which is not less striking in the eyes of piety, is the heart of francis, burning with anxiety to shed his blood for the glory of his master, and not being able to satisfy that ardor. already, in the hope of attaining it, he had embarked for syria, and contrary winds had driven him back to the christian shores. he had gone into spain in order to pass into africa, when a violent illness compelled him to desist from the undertaking. he thinks he already grasps the palm, when he finds himself in egypt; in order to hasten the accomplishment of his desires, he places himself in the hands of the infidels, and attacks the tyrant on his throne; when, instead of the opprobrium and tortures which he sought, he finds nothing but mildness and curiosity, attentions and honor. he seeks for martyrdom, and martyrdom flies from him. "it was," st. bonaventure remarks, "by an admirable disposition of divine providence, who chose that the ardent desire of his faithful servant should give him the merit of martyrdom, and that his life should be preserved to receive the glorious stigmata which were to be impressed on his body by a singular prerogative, in reward of his great love for jesus crucified, who inflamed his heart." wading relates, upon the authority of a religious of the order, who was a contemporary of st. francis, whose name was ugolino of st. mary of the mount, corroborated by some other writers of the order, that the sultan was converted and baptized. some later authors deny this, and remark that they have mistaken the sultan of egypt for the sultan of ieonium, who never saw st. francis, and of whom james of vitry says, that he was believed to have received baptism at his death which happened in the year when damietta was besieged. it is admitted that wading was mistaken in quoting this passage to prove the conversion of the sultan of egypt, but that does not weaken the evidence of ugolino. he says that francis went a second time to the sultan before his return to italy. he urged him to be converted. the saint, not being able to induce him to overcome the human obstacles which stood in the way, prayed fervently for him for several successive days, and then felt that his prayers were heard. this he communicated to meledin, who imbibed still greater affection for him, and wished to detain him, but he departed according to the command that he had received from heaven. some years after, this prince being dangerously ill, the saint appeared to two of his religious who were in syria and ordered them to go to him, instruct him, baptize him, and remain with him till he should expire; all this was complied with. there is nothing in this legend which is not very probable, and which is not consistent with circumstances that cannot be called into question: . we have seen, in the narratives of james of vitry, and of st. bonaventure, that meledin said to francis: "pray for me, that god may make known to me which religion is most agreeable to him;" and that he wished to induce him to receive his presents, in order to distribute them to the poor christians, or to the churches, for the salvation of his soul. . after he had seen the holy man, he treated the christians with great humanity, and shortly after their discomfiture, he sent some of his prisoners to their camp, to offer terms of peace. in the year , their army, which was coming to offer him battle, entangled itself between two branches of the nile, where it must have inevitably perished. "he behaved to his enemies," says one of our authors, "in such a manner as could not reasonably have been expected from a saracen, and which in these days would do honor to a christian prince were he to do it." . an author, whose testimony on such a point is beyond suspicion, says, "that this sultan, being on his deathbed, caused a large sum of money to be distributed among the poor christians who were sick in the hospitals, and that he left a considerable revenue for the same purpose; that he enfranchised many slaves, that he had performed various other acts of mercy, and that his death was greatly lamented by the christians, whom he spared to the utmost of his power. the emperor frederic was inconsolable after meledin's death, having had strong hopes that he would receive baptism according to a promise he had given him, and that he would strenuously contribute to the propagation of christianity in the levant." . it may have happened that st. francis who was then in heaven, appeared to two of the religious of his order, and that he sent them to meledin; that these religious instructed and baptized him; and that the thing was done secretly from the circumstances of the times; that the authors of those times were not informed of it, and that ugolino learned it from the religious themselves. in short, it is not improbable that the conversion of this soul should have been granted to the zeal, labors, prayers and tears of such a friend of god as st. francis. thus, the baptism of the sultan is not so very uncertain, and those who have recorded it have not given the saint praise which may be called false, as wading has been acrimoniously taxed with. after all, if meledin was not converted, it is a judgment of god, which those must be fearful of who recommend themselves to the prayers of the pious, forming projects of conversion, and even doing some good works, who yet positively resist the grace vouchsafed them, which requires an effectual change of heart. if he was converted, which is probable, it was a great effect of divine mercy, which sinners must not abuse by deferring their repentance; these graces are very rarely given, and those who wait for them run great risk of their salvation. there is reason for thinking that meledin gave francis and his companions leave to preach in his dominions, since it is well known that the friars minor began from that time to spread themselves amongst the saracens, as james de vitry says:--"even the saracens, blinded as they are, admire the humility and perfection of the friars minor, receive them well, and provide them cheerfully with all the necessaries of life, when they go boldly amongst them to preach the gospel; they listen to them willingly, speaking of jesus christ and his doctrine; but they beat them and drive them away if they attack mahomet, and hold him as a liar and infidel." an anecdote, related by st. bonaventure, may have easily happened in those times. a saracen seeing some friars minor, was moved by their poverty and offered them some money, which they refused to accept, and this astonished him. having understood that it was for the love of god that they refused money, he conceived such a liking for them, that he undertook to provide them with everything necessary as long as he was able to do so. the holy doctor exclaims on this:--"o inestimable excellence of poverty, which is so powerful to inspire a barbarian with such tender and generous compassion!" it would be a shameful and very criminal thing, were christians to despise and trample under foot this precious evangelical pearl, for which a mahometan showed such esteem and respect. while francis remained in egypt, he did not gather much fruit from among the infidels; but his words were a fertile seed which his disciples reaped the abundant harvest of, when afterwards sent thither by gregory ix and innocent iii. the saracens were not the only objects of the zeal of francis. he labored also for the salvation of the christians in the army of the crusaders, and some of them became his disciples. james de vitry, bishop of acre, writing to his friends in lorraine informed them that renier, the prior of st. michael, had joined the order of the friars minor; and that three of the most eminent of his clergy had followed his example, and that it was with difficulty he prevented the chorister and several others from taking the same course, to which he adds that this religious order spreads fast in the world because it is an exact imitation of the form of the primitive church, and of the life of the apostles. the most ancient records of the order assure us that after some months' residence in egypt, the holy patriarch went to palestine, and visited the holy places, but they enter into no particulars. what we may safely conjecture is, that god, who led him into the holy land, seemed to say to him, as he had said to abraham: "arise and walk through the land in the length and in the breadth thereof, for i will give it to thee." rather more than a hundred years after his death, the sultan of egypt permitted the friars minor to take charge of the holy sepulchre of our lord, and they still have the care of it in the midst of the infidels, under the protection of the eldest son of the church. this privilege, which is so honorable for the order of st. francis, is justly considered by them as the fruit of the fervent devotion of the blessed patriarch to jesus christ crucified. from palestine francis went to antioch, the capital of syria, and passed by the black mountain, where there was a celebrated monastery of the order of st. benedict. the abbot who had died only a short time before, had foretold that a saintly man would soon come to their house, who was much beloved by god, the patriarch, of a great order, who would be poorly attired and of mean appearance, but very much to be revered; in consequence of which the religious, hearing of his coming, went in procession to meet him, and received him with all the honors due to a man of god. he remained some days with them, and the holiness which they observed in him made such an impression upon them, that they embraced his institute, placing all their effects at the disposition of the patriarch of antioch. some other monasteries followed their example; and, in a few years, there was a flourishing province in that country, which continued until such time as the saracens ravaged the whole of syria. while francis was thus employed in extending his order in the east, brother elias, who was his vicar-general in the west, was destroying it there. he said to the religious, in their conferences, that the life of their founder was worthy of the highest praise, but that it was not given to all to imitate it; that among the things which he had prescribed for them, some appeared in the eyes of prudence very difficult of observance, others absolutely impracticable and beyond the strength of man; that, in the opinion of the most prudent, some modification was requisite and some change required, some practices necessary, which were not so strictly regular--by specious insinuations of this nature, he brought over many to his opinions, and even some of the provincials who ventured to represent the simplicity of their father as imprudent. the vicar-general, nevertheless, in conjunction with the ministers, made some regulations for the government of the provinces which were very useful; but, by a strange inconsistency, at the time when they were talking of modifications, they prescribed total abstinence from meat, and forbade its use either in or out of the cloisters, which was a direct contradiction of the rule, which permits the friars minor, except in times of fasting, to eat, according to the terms of the gospel, whatsoever is put before them. all those who had the true spirit of god were greatly grieved to see that human prudence was preferred to the divine will, and that the vineyard of the lord was rendered desolate by brother elias. they put up fervent prayers to god for the speedy return of their pastor, so necessary for the flock; and, after having secretly concerted together, they sent brother stephen into syria, to communicate to their founder what was going on. stephen went and gave him a full detail of all things. francis was not cast down by this deplorable intelligence, but he had recourse to god, and recommended to his protection the family he had received from him. as to the regulation which prescribed entire abstinence from meat, he, with great humility, asked the advice of peter of catana, who replied: "it is not for me to judge; it is for the legislator to decide thereon, as on all the rest." francis deferred the decision till his return, and embarked immediately for italy. his voyage was not a long one; they soon anchored at the isle of candia, from whence they came to venice where they landed. he sent circular letters to convene the chapter which he proposed holding at the ensuing michaelmas, to remedy the evil which had been brought about by brother elias. he built a small chapel near the venetian lakes, (lagunes,) in which two of his religious were to say the divine office, in memory of an extraordinary thing which happened to him at this place. the saint then went to padua, bergamo, brescia, the island of the lake of garda, to cremona and mantua; at all these places there were convents of his order. we are assured that st. dominic joined him on his way; that they conferred together and with john of navarra de torniella, bishop of bergamo, on the salvation of souls; that they made some pious visits to the solitaries of the valley of astino, and that the patriarch of the friars preachers celebrated mass there, that of the minors being the deacon at the service. when they were in spiritual conference at cremona, the religious came to request them to bless the well, and to solicit the almighty to purify the water which was thick and muddy. dominic, at the entreaty of francis, blessed a vessel full of the water, and caused it to be thrown back into the well, and all water that subsequently was drawn from it was clear and wholesome to drink. the two saints separated, but, shortly after, met again at bologna. francis going to bologna, met a woman whose son was epileptic, and who came to beg the aid of his prayers. he wrote on a slip of paper some short but very devout ejaculatory prayers which he thought might be taken to the sick youth; they had no sooner been given to him, than he was entirely cured; in gratitude whereof, he placed himself at the service of the friars minor in the convent of parma. the reputation of the holy man was so great that, according to sigonius, the streets were choked with the number of students who wished to see and hear him. it was with difficulty that way was made for him to reach the principal square, where he preached in so sublime a manner that they thought they heard an angel and not a man. the greater part of the audience was converted; and many solicited the habit of the order, among whom were nicholas of pepulis, bonizio, pelerino, falleroni, and riger or ricer of modena. nicholas was that learned jurisconsult who had been so kind to bernard de quintavalle in , when every one had treated him with contempt at bologna. bonizio excelled in the love of holy poverty, and was very useful to the saint in affairs of importance, by the talent he had of managing with prudence. pelerino and riger were young gentlemen from the marches of ancona, who were students at bologna--to them francis foretold all they would do in the course of their lives. the first would only be a lay-brother, although he was well versed in canon-law; it was said of him that when he was in company with men of the world, either from necessity or from charitable motives, he left them as soon as he could; and when he was censured for so doing as being guilty of rudeness, he replied: "when we have sought jesus christ our master, we have never found him either amongst relatives or amongst our acquaintances." the second attached himself to his holy patriarch, and strove to imitate him in all things. although he was eminently favored with the gift of chastity, he nevertheless avoided with great care the conversation of females, and he said to those with whom he was intimate, who were surprised at it: "i should perhaps lose the gift with which i have been favored, by a just judgment of god, if i took fewer precautions: he who loves danger will perish in it." here is an authentic testimonial as to one of the sermons which francis preached at bologna in the year ; it is taken from the archives of the church of spalatro, and it is found in the history of the bishops of bologna, written by sigonius: "i, thomas, citizen of spalatro, and archdeacon of the cathedral of the same town, saw, in the year , on the day of the assumption of the mother of god, st. francis preach in the square in front of the little palace where almost the whole city was collected. he began his sermon thus: 'the angels, the men, and the demons.' he spoke of these intelligent beings so well and with such precision, that many learned men who heard him, were astonished to hear such a discourse from the mouth of so simple a man. he did not diverge to draw a moral from different subjects, as preachers usually do, but as those who dilate upon one point, he brought everything to bear upon the sole object of restoring peace, concord, and union which had been totally destroyed by cruel dissensions. he was very poorly clad, his countenance was pale and wan, and his whole appearance was uninviting; but god gave such force and efficiency to his words, that they led to the reconciliation of a great number of gentlemen who were greatly exasperated against each other, and whose irritation had caused the shedding of no small quantity of blood. the love and veneration for the saint were so universal, and went so far, that men and women ran to him in crowds, and those esteemed themselves fortunate who could only touch the hem of his garments." the author who records this testimonial adds that he performed miracles also in bologna. a child of quality was taken to him, who had what is called a pearl on his eye, which rendered his eye quite blind, and no remedy could be found for it. francis made the sign of the cross over him from the head to the feet, and he was perfectly cured. having subsequently entered the institute of his miraculous physician, he saw much better with the eye on which the pearl had been than with the other. this miracle, which was known throughout the city, increased the zeal and respect which the bolognese had for the servant of god so much, that they could not tear themselves from him, and they gave him a second house for his institute, situated in a wood about a mile from the town. after these apostolical functions, he went to see cardinal ugolino, who was then legate in lombardy, by whom he was received with marks of the most sincere affection. he proposed next to visit the convent of his order which was close to one of the gates of bologna, but as soon as he saw it, finding it much more spacious and handsome than was requisite for strict poverty, he turned away his eyes from it, and said indignantly: "is this the dwelling of the poor evangelical laborers? such grand and superb palaces, are they for friars minor? i do not acknowledge this house as one of ours, and i do not look upon those who dwell in it as my brethren. i, therefore, order and enjoin all those who wish to continue to bear the name of friars minor, to leave this house forthwith, and to give up to the rich of the world buildings which are only fit for them." he was so implicitly obeyed, that even the sick, among whom was brother leo, one of his first companions, who is the relator of this circumstance, were carried out on the shoulders of their brethren and exposed to the air. there they all remained till the arrival of the legate, who, having been informed of what was going on, had come and appeased the holy man. he represented to him that it was necessary to allow the convents to be more spacious, in order that the infirm might have more air for restoring their health; and that such as were well should have more room for relaxing their minds. "but as to the property," he added, "i can assure you that your brethren have no part in it, as it remains entirely to the founders. moreover, if you have any further scruples on the subject, i declare to you that i take the whole upon myself in the name of the holy roman church." francis could not resist the powerful reason of the prudent and pious legate, the protector of his order. he, therefore, consented that his brethren should remain in the convent; he even ordered them to return to it, but he would not go into it himself, and he chose to take the repose which nature required, in the house of the friars preachers, where he passed some days with his friend saint dominic. it would appear that st. bonaventure had this circumstance in view, when he said: "that if it happened that st. francis found in the houses which his brethren occupied, anything which looked like property, or that was too elegant, he wished the houses to be pulled down, or that the religious should quit them, because he maintained that the order was grounded on evangelical poverty as its principal foundation, so that if this poverty was adhered to in it, it would flourish, but that it would perish if it was set aside." while the saint was with the friars preachers, one of them, from feelings of compassion, begged him to return to his children, and to pardon the fault they had committed, but he replied: "indulgence which gives rise to an easy relapse into sin, is not be commended. i will not sanction by my presence what has been committed against holy poverty." this charitable religious endeavored to induce him at least to see them, in order that they might be made aware of their fault, and be corrected. "we will come back here together," he said, "if you do not choose to remain there, after having performed this duty of superior." francis yielded to this prudent advice; he went to his children, and seeing them grieved and repentant, and ready to receive the penance he might inflict, he pardoned them. his indulgence did not extend to the provincial, whose name was john de strachia, one of those who wished to have the rule mitigated in . he censured him severely for having had so beautiful a house built, or, at least, for having permitted it to be built. he upbraided him in strong terms for having, without consulting him, opened a school for the studies of the friars minor, and for having made regulations for its conduct more favorable to science than to piety. he did away with this school, because he chose that his religious should pray rather than study, and that the other provincials might learn to be more humble and more religious in all that had relation to studies. and here we must advert to what happened at a later period; the provincial had the rashness to reestablish the school after the departure of the founder, who, having been informed of it, and knowing from interior revelation the obduracy of this man, cursed him publicly, and deposed him at the ensuing chapter. the saint was entreated to withdraw this curse, and to give his blessing to brother john, who was a noble and learned man, but he answered: "i cannot bless him whom the lord has cursed." a dreadful reply which was soon after verified. this unfortunate man died, exclaiming: "i am damned and cursed for all eternity." some frightful circumstances which followed after his death confirmed his awful prognostic. such a malediction which pride and disobedience brought upon this learned man, ought to strike terror into those vain men who forsake piety for science, and in whom great talents have no other effect than to produce in them great attachment to their own conceits, and proud indocility, which induces, at length, even a revolt against the church. st. francis was not averse to studies, as will be seen, when, two years after, he caused theology to be taught. but he chose that they should so study as not to extinguish the spirit of prayer. he approved of science, but of that only, which the holy spirit calls religious, which is sanctified by the fear of the lord, of which st. augustine says: "that it is the companion of charity, and teaches humility." cardinal ugolino proposed to the servant of god that they should make a retreat of some days together, at camaldoli, in order to give his body some rest, which was borne down by fatigue, and relax his mind from the various cares which oppressed it. he willingly assented to this, because he liked the life of a recluse. they, therefore, went to this holy solitude, and they remained there nearly a month, solely employed in meditation on heavenly things. the cardinal took a cell at the entry of the desert where it is still to be seen; and francis took one near it, which had been inhabited by st. romnald. it has since taken the name of st. francis' cell, and is only occupied by the prior, or major of camaldoli. the writers of the country add, that the festival of st. francis is celebrated solemnly there, and that it is decreed by the statutes that the anthem which the friars minor chant shall be sung on that day: salve, sancte pater, &c. the two pious solitaries went from thence to mount alvernia, where they only stayed a few days. the cardinal returned to bologna, and francis took the route for assisi, in order to open the chapter at st. mary of the angels, as he had given notice. on the way, st. bonaventure acquaints us what occurred to him. his infirmities and fatigue having compelled him to mount on an ass, his companion, leonard of assisi, who followed him on foot, and was also very much fatigued, gave way to human feelings, and said to himself: "his parents were not the equals of mine; yet, there he rides, and i am forced to trudge on foot and lead him." as he was thus giving way to these thoughts, francis, to whom god had made known what was passing in leonard's mind, dismounted, and said: "no, brother, it is not fitting that i should ride while you walk on foot, because you are better born than i am, and are of greater consideration in the world." leonard, greatly surprised, and blushing for shame, threw himself at his father's feet, acknowledged his fault, and with tears solicited his pardon. as soon as the holy patriarch entered the valley of spoleto, his children came in crowds from various parts to meet him, and to congratulate him on his return. he was greatly gratified on seeing them, and communicated freely with them, encouraging the weak, consoling those who were in affliction, censuring such as were in fault, and exhorting them all to adhere strictly to the rules. it was there that he received a confirmation of the complaints which had been made to him in the levant, against the government of elias, his vicar general, and he had himself the proof of it. elias ventured to present himself to him, in a newer habit and one made of finer cloth than those of the other brethren, the cowl of which was longer and the sleeves wider, and he assumed an air little suitable to his profession. francis, dissembling what was passing in his mind, said to him before the assistants:--"i beg you to lend me that habit." elias did not dare refuse: he went aside and took it off and brought it to him. francis put it on over his own, smoothed it down, plaited it nicely under the girdle, threw the cowl over his head, and then, strutting fiercely with his head erect, he paced three or four times round the company, saying, in a loud voice :--"god preserve you, good people." then taking the habit off indignantly, he threw it from him with contempt, and, turning to elias, "that is the way," he said, "that the bastard brethren of our order will strut." after this he resumed his usual demeanor and walked humbly with his old and tattered habit, saying:--"such is the deportment of the true friars minor." then, seating himself amongst them, he addressed them in the mildest manner, and spoke on poverty and humility, of which he so forcibly pointed out the perfection, that it seemed to them that those whom they had previously considered the poorest and most humble, had made but small advance in the practice of those two virtues. in fine, he annulled all the novelties which the vicar-general had introduced into the order during his absence, except the prohibition of eating meat, which he thought it necessary to retain some time longer, lest he might be thought to encourage gluttony. the means he had taken to curb the foolish vanity of brother elias, showed both his prudence and his authority, and made such an impression on his disciples, that there was not one of them who ventured to say a word in favor of the vicar-general, although he had his partisans amongst them. some time afterwards, the patriarch had an opportunity of taking off the prohibition of eating meat, in consequence of a wonderful event which is worthy of being recorded. a young man in the dress of a traveller, came in haste to the door of the convent of st. mary of the angels, and said to brother masse, who was the porter:--"i wish to speak to brother francis, but i know he is meditating in the woods; call brother elias to me, who is said to be learned and prudent, in order that he may satisfy a doubt which presses upon me." the porter was turned away by brother elias, and was puzzled what reply to give the stranger, not to scandalize him, and not to say what was untrue. the young man anticipated him, saying: "brother elias does not choose to come, i must therefore beg you to go to brother francis, in order that he may order him to come to speak to me." masse went, and did as he was requested, and francis, having his eyes fixed on heaven, said, without changing his position:--"go and tell brother elias that i order him to speak to the young man." this order vexed elias, and he came to the door in great irritation, asking what he was wanted for? "do not be angry," said the young man, "i ask you, if those who profess to follow the gospel may not eat whatever is given to them, as jesus christ has observed; and if any one may rightfully direct the contrary?" elias, seizing hastily the door to shut it, said:--"i know all that, and have no answer to give you but: go your ways." the young man replied:--"i cannot tell what you would answer, but i know very well that you ought to give an answer." when elias got calm in his cell, he reflected on what had passed, and on what would be proper to say in answer to the question which had been put to him; and, finding it difficult, and being sorry that he had given the young man so ungracious a reception, in whom he thought he had remarked something extraordinary, he returned to speak to him, but he was gone and could not be found. francis learned from god that it was an angel, and, on his return to the convent, he said to brother elias:--"you do what is not right; you turn contemptuously away angels who come from god to visit and instruct us; i greatly fear that your pride will render you unworthy of the humble institution of friars minor, and that you will die out of that state." it was then that he revoked the statute which forbade eating meat. bernard of quintavalle returning from spain and being on the border of a river which he could not cross, the same angel appeared to him in the same form, and greeted him in the italian language. bernard, surprised at hearing the language of his country, and taken with the good looks of the young man who addressed him, asked him from whence he came. the angel then told him what had just occurred between him and brother elias. he took him by the hand, carried him across the river, and disappeared, leaving him so full of consolation, that he had no fatigue during the remainder of his journey. when he arrived in italy, and had related the circumstance, with the day and hour, he found that it was in fact the same angel. before the opening of the chapter, francis, reflecting mournfully on the relaxation which had been introduced into his order by those who ought to have been most zealous in promoting the purity of its observance, had a vision which was very extraordinary. a great statue appeared before him, and he saw it with his bodily eyes; it greatly resembled that which nabuchodonosor had seen in a dream, the interpretation of which had been given him by the prophet daniel. god chose to employ this mode to acquaint the holy patriarch with the various revolutions which would take place in his order, and he signified them to him by the statue itself, by the different metals of which it was composed, either thus to modify by these humiliating foreshowings the honor which he derived from being the founder of so wonderful a work as that of the establishment of his order; or to inspire him with the intention of sending up fervent prayers to heaven, which should draw down graces on his flock at all times, which, in fact, he did with a profusion of tears; or, in fine, it was a foresight given him of the relaxations which would be introduced, to enable him to advise his religious to be more vigilant, as st. paul had predicted the errors and irregularities which were to occur in the church, in order to excite the vigilance of the bishops. in nabuchodonosor's vision, a stone was separated from the mountain, which, striking the feet of the statue, shivered it to pieces; the statue was wholly broken, and disappeared. this did not occur in the vision which francis had; for the great body of religion which it represented, which has had its vicissitudes, as all others (and with more lustre than any, because of its more extensive and greater exposure to the eyes of the public) has nevertheless continued to have existence, to maintain itself, to serve the church at all times, and to furnish it with saints. it has even often renewed itself with features which bring to mind its primitive beauty; by which it may be said to be a type of the mystical body of jesus christ, which notwithstanding the decay of ages, does not cease to have vigorous and healthy members who are as fervent as those of the earliest periods. the holy founder having listened to all that was said against the government of brother elias, and to what he had alleged in his justification, held his chapter on the festival of st. michael, in the convent of portiuncula. he substituted brother gratian, in the place of brother john of strachia, as provincial of bologna, of which we have spoken before; and brother peter of catania, in place of brother elias. peter had been the second of his disciples, and into his hands he committed the whole guidance of his order, not only because he did not think himself able to look to it in person, on account of the multitude of religious now belonging to it, and on account of his infirmity, but in order to improve himself in the virtue of humility, to which he was so much attached. he then assembled them and said:--"i am now dead to you all; there is peter of catania, who is your superior, whom henceforward we must all obey, you and i," and prostrating himself at the feet of peter, he promised to obey him in all things as minister general of the order. this title of minister general was displeasing to the religious, who did not wish it should be given to any one during the lifetime of their father, and they agreed that he who took his place should only have the title of vicar general. francis being on his knees, with his hands clasped, and his eyes lifted up to heaven, said, with affecting emotion: "my lord jesus christ, i recommend to thee this family, which is thine own, and which up to this moment thou hast confided to me. thou knowest that my infirmities incapacitate me from having any longer the care of it; i leave it in the hands of the ministers; if it should so happen that on their part, negligence, scandal, or too great severity, should be the cause of any one of the brethren perishing, they will render to thee, o lord, an account of it at the day of judgement." from that time till his death he continued as much as it was in his power in the humble state of an inferior, although he did not fail to communicate to the superiors the lights which god gave him for the good government of the order, and on several occasions he could not avoid acting as its founder and general. st. dominic, his friend, had similar feelings as to the employments of office. in this year he held the first chapter of his order at bologna, and wished to resign the station of superior, of which his humility made him consider himself incapable and unworthy; but his religious would not permit it. these have been the feelings of all the saints, because they knew that, for the purpose of salvation, it is safer to obey than to command. eight days before the chapter, pope honorious issued a bull addressed to francis, and to the superiors of the friars minor, by which he forbade them to receive any one to profession, unless after a twelvemonth's probation, and directing that, after profession, no one whosoever should leave the order; forbidding, also, any persons from receiving such as should quit it. what gave rise to this measure was that, at the commencement of the order of friars minor, and of that of the preachers, there were some who made their profession without a novitiate, according as the superiors thought proper under different circumstances, and this sort of precipitate engagement was found to have its inconveniences. peter of catania, acting as vicar general, and finding that he could not provide for the multitude of religious who came to the convent of st. mary of the angels, as to the chief monastery of the order, thought that, in order to provide for this, some portion of the property of the novices might be retained; on which he consulted francis to know whether he thought the suggestion proper, and if he would permit it. francis said: "my dear brother, god preserve us from this sort of charity, which would render us impious in respect to our rule, in order to acquire consideration in the sight of men." the vicar then asking what he should do for the relief of the guests; "strip the altar of the blessed virgin," replied francis, "take away all the ornaments which are there; the lord will send you what is requisite to restore to his mother what we shall employ in charity. believe firmly that the virgin will be pleased to see her altar stripped, rather than that there should be any contravention of the gospel of her son;" and he took occasion again strenuously to recommend holy poverty. he also said many things relative to books, to science, and to preaching, which will be recorded in another part of his life. brother casar of spires, who had been professor of theology before becoming a friar minor, and who was a man of great piety, having heard all that the father said on the subject of science, and the learned, had a long conversation with him on the state of his soul, and on the observance of the rule, which he concluded thus: "my father, i have made a firm resolution, with god's grace, to observe the gospel and the rule, according to the instruction of jesus christ, until my death; and now, i have a favor to ask you, which is that, if it may happen in my lifetime that some should swerve from it, as you have foretold, you give me your blessing from this moment, and your leave to separate myself from such transgressors, in order that i may adhere to the rule alone with those who have a like zeal with myself." rejoicing at this proposition, francis embraced him and blessed him, saying: "know, my son, that what you solicit is granted to you by jesus christ, and by me;" and placing his hands on his head, he added: "thou art a priest forever according to the order of melchisedech"--the holy man desiring to have it understood thereby that all the promises he had received from jesus christ, would have their accomplishment to the end, in those who adhered to the rule. it was at this time that he addressed a letter to the religious of his order, and particularly to the priests, upon the profound veneration which we ought to have for that august mystery of the eucharist. in the course of the year , francis received the news of the martyrdom of the five religious whom he had sent to morocco. we must relate the circumstances, more at length, since they belong to the life of the holy patriach, who gave this mission to these valorous soldiers of jesus christ, and since they are the first martyrs of the order. berardus, peter, otho, ajut, accursus, and vital, their superior, having left italy for morocco, after having received their father's blessing, as has already been noticed, arrived shortly after in the kingdom of arragon. there vital was detained some time by a lingering illness, which induced him to think that it was not god's will that he should continue his journey. he therefore let the other five proceed, who soon reached coimbra, and were favorably received by urraca, queen of portugal, the wife of king alphonso ii. this princess conceived so high an opinion of their virtue and placed such confidence in them, that she entreated them to pray to god to inform them of the time at which she should die. they promised to do so, although they considered themselves unworthy of making such a request; but they were so favorably heard, that they foretold to the queen that they were to suffer martyrdom with all the circumstances thereof; that their relics would be brought to coimbra, and that she would receive them honorably, after which she would be called from this world. predictions which were fully verified. they went from thence to alanquer, where the princess sancia, sister to the king of portugal, approving their plans, induced them to put secular clothing over their religious habits, without which precaution they would not have been able to pass into the territories of morocco. having reached seville, which was then occupied by the moors, they remained a week concealed in the house of a christian, where they threw off their secular clothing. their zeal induced them to go forth, and they got as far as the principal mosque, which they attempted to enter in order to preach to the infidels, but they were driven back with loud cries and severely beaten. from thence they went to the gate of the palace, saying that they were ambassadors sent to the king from jesus christ, the king of kings. they were introduced, and said many things relative to the christian religion, to induce the king to be converted and receive baptism; but they afterwards added much against mahomet and against his law, which irritated him to such a degree, that he ordered them to be beheaded; but being mollified by the entreaties of his son, he was satisfied with having them confined at the top of a tower, from whence he had them removed to the ground-floor, because, from above, they continued to speak of jesus christ, and against the prophet, to those who entered the palace. having caused them to be again brought before him, he engaged to pardon them, if they would change their religion: "prince," they replied, "would to god that you would have mercy on yourself! treat us as you think proper. it is in your power to take away our lives, but we are sure that death will lead us to a glorious immortality." the king, seeing their unshakeable firmness, sent them, by the advice of his council, to morocco, with don pedro fernandas de castro, a gentlemen of castile, and some other christians. they found there the infant don pedro of portugal, who had retired to that country in consequence of some misunderstanding which he had with his brother, king alphonso, and who now commanded the troops of the king of morocco. this prince received them with great respect and charity as apostolical men, and had them provided with every thing necessary for their subsistence. knowing what had occurred to them at seville, in consequence of their preaching, and seeing that, consequently, they were still in a state of great weakness, he endeavored to dissuade them from doing the same thing in morocco; but the generous missionaries, solely intent upon their pious object, ceased not to preach without any fear, wherever they met with any saracens. one day, when berardus was giving instruction to the people and was declaiming against mahomet from a wagon, the king passed by, going to visit the tombs of his predecessors, and seeing that he continued his talking notwithstanding his presence, he thought the declaimer must be out of his mind, and instantly directed that all the five should be driven out of the town, and sent back to the country of the christians. the infant don juan gave them an escort to convey them to ceuta, whence they were to embark. on the road, they got stealthily away from their escort, and returned to morocco, where they recommenced preaching in the great square. the king, being informed of this, became greatly irritated, and had them imprisoned, in order to starve them to death. they were there twenty days without food or drink. during this time the heat became so excessive and caused so much sickness, that it was thought that the hand of god fell heavily upon them to avenge his servants. the king became alarmed, and by the advice of a saracen named abaturino, who loved the christians, he liberated the prisoners. they were extremely surprised to find that, after twenty days' confinement, without any nourishment whatsoever, they came out in full health and strength. as soon as they had left the prison, they were anxious to recommence their preaching; but the other christians, who were apprehensive of the wrath of the king, opposed themselves to it, and had them taken to the place of embarkation; but they again made their escape, and returned to morocco. then the infant don pedro was induced to keep them in his palace, and to place guards over them to prevent their appearing in public. this prince being obliged to set out, some short time after, to take the command of the army which the king sent against some rebels, he took the friars minor with him, as well as several other christians, fearing lest, during his absence, they should escape from those who had charge of them. as he returned victorious, his army was three days without water, and was reduced to the greatest distress. brother bernardus resorted to prayer, and having made a hole in the ground with a pickaxe, he caused a spring to flow from it, which sufficed for the whole army, and enabled them to fill their goat-skins, after which it dried up. so palpable a miracle procured for them from all parts the greatest veneration. many even went so far as to kiss their feet. when they returned to morocco, the infant continued to take the same precautions as before, to prevent their appearing in public; nevertheless, they found means to get out secretly one friday, and to present themselves before the king, as he was passing, according to his custom, to visit the tombs of his predecessors. berardus again got upon a wagon, and spoke in his presence with astonishing intrepidity. the king, irritated beyond control, gave orders to one of the princes of his court to have them put to death. this prince only had them put in prison, because he had witnessed the miracle which we have recorded above. they were very ill-treated in this confinement, but continued to preach even there, when there were either christians or saracens to listen to them. all this occurred towards the end of the year . at the beginning of the year , the saracen prince who had received the order to put them to death, having sent for them from the prison, found them very firm in their faith, and that they spoke with the same boldness against their prophet mahomet. he was so enraged at this, that, forgetful of the miracle he had witnessed on the return of the army, he directed them to be kept separated and tortured in various ways. they tied their hands and feet, and dragged them along the ground by a cord fastened round their necks, and they were so cruelly scourged that their bowels nearly protruded. thirty men who were employed for this cruel service did not leave them till they had poured boiling vinegar and oil into their wounds, and rolled them upon broken pieces of earthenware covered with straw. some of those who guarded them, saw a great light which came from heaven, and which seemed to raise these religious up, with an innumerable number of other persons; they thought that they had left the prison and entered it in great haste, where they found them in fervent prayer. the king of morocco, informed of what had been done, desired that they might be brought into his presence. they brought them to him, their hands tied, and they were driven in with blows and cuffs. a saracen prince who met them endeavored to induce them to embrace the law of mahomet. brother otho rejected the proposition with horror and spat on the ground, to mark his contempt of such a religion; this brought upon him a severe box on the ear, upon which he turned the other side, according to the direction of the gospel, and said to the prince:--"may god forgive thee, for thou knowest not what thou doest." when they had reached the palace, the king said to them: "are you then those impious persons who despise the true faith, those foolish persons who blaspheme the prophet sent from god?" "o king," they answered, "we have no contempt for the true faith; on the contrary, we are ready to suffer and die in its defence; but we detest your faith, and the wicked man who was its author." the king, imagining that he might perhaps gain them over by the love of pleasure, of riches or of honors, said to them, in pointing out to them some saracen women whom he had brought there on purpose: "i will give you those women for wives, together with large sums of money, and you shall be highly esteemed in my kingdom, if you will embrace the law of mahomet; if not, you shall die by the sword." the confessors of the faith answered without hesitating: "we want neither your women nor your money: keep those for yourself, and let jesus christ be for us. subject us to what tortures you please, and take away our lives. all suffering is light to us, when we think of the glories of heaven." then the king, having lost all hopes of overcoming them, took his scimitar, and with his own hand split their skulls in two; and thus was completed the martyrdom of the five friars minor, on the th of january, . their bodies, having been dragged out of the town and cut to pieces by the infidels, were collected by the christians; and the infant don pedro took them into spain, from whence he sent them into portugal to king alphonso, not daring as yet to revisit his own country. this king, accompanied by queen urraca and some of the grandees of the kingdom, came with the clergy to meet them, and had them placed with great pomp in the monastery of regular canons of the holy cross, at coimbra, where they still are. the celebrated miracles which were achieved there in great numbers as well as those which were performed in morocco, and on the way to europe, are recorded by contemporary authors, who have written their acts. pope sixtus iv recognized them solemnly as martyrs, in the year , and gave permission to the religious to say their office. at the time of their death, the princess sancia of portugal, was in the act of prayer; they appeared to her with a bloody scimitar in their hands and told her that by their martyrdom they were on their way to heaven, where they would pray to god continually for her and would thus reward the good she had done them. what they had foretold queen urraca, as to the time of her death, came to pass, and her confessor, a canon regular of santa cruz, a most exemplary man, of great piety, was made acquainted with it by a very marvellous vision. a short time after the bodies of these glorious martyrs had been placed in the church of this monastery, he saw in the middle of the night the choir filled with religious, who were singing very melodiously, which surprised him exceedingly, neither knowing what brought them there, nor how they got in. he asked one of them, who replied: "we are all friars minor. he whom you see at the head, is brother francis, whom you have longed so much to see; and the five who are more resplendent than the rest, are the martyrs of morocco, who are honored in this church. our lord has sent us hither in order to pray for queen urraca, who is dead, and who had great affection for our order; and he has willed that you should see all this, because you were her confessor." the vision disappeared, and the confessor's door was immediately knocked at, to communicate to him that the queen was dead. the severe vengeance with which god visited the king of morocco and his subjects was also noticed. the right hand with which this prince had struck the holy martyrs, and the whole of his right side, from the head to the feet, was paralyzed and became perfectly dry. during three years, no rain fell in the whole country, and an infinity of people died by pestilence and famine, which scourges lasted five years, god choosing to proportion the duration of the punishment to the number of the martyrs. all these marvels which he wrought in their favor, and the title of martyrs, which the church gives them, must convince every faithful christian, enlightened by the wisdom which is from above, that it was by a particular impulse from the holy ghost that they exposed themselves to death with so much ardor, against the advice of the other christians. human prudence is very rash when it takes upon itself to blame what is approved by god and by his church. it would be difficult to express the joy which filled the heart of francis, when he learned that his brethren had suffered martyrdom. he said to those who were with him:--"it is now that i can rest assured that i have had five true friars minor!" and he called down a thousand blessings on the convent of alanquer, where they had prepared themselves for martyrdom, which had such effect, that there have been always since a great number of religious there, and at least one who has been distinguished for religious perfection. brother vital, who had been the superior of these generous martyrs, was delighted on hearing of their triumph, and greatly regretted not having shared therein. it was not in good-will that he was deficient; he was only arrested by his illness, of which he died at saragossa some time afterwards. one of the authors of the life of st. dominic, tells us that this great patriarch, who held his general chapter at the time, was in ecstasies of joy, when he heard that five friars minor had received the crown of martyrdom; that he looked upon it as the first fruits of the plans of his friend francis, and, at the same time, as a powerful incentive for his brethren to aspire to what is most perfect, which is to suffer for the faith of jesus christ. the friars preachers have profited by the example, as is evinced by the great number of martyrs of their order, by whom the church has been enriched. it was not without a special dispensation of providence that the relics of the five martyrs were deposited at coimbra, in the church of the canons regular of santa cruz, since our lord made them subserve to the vocation of st. anthony of padua, who is one of the most striking ornaments of this renowned order. he was a native of portugal, of a very noble family of lisbon, born in the year , and had received the name of ferdinand in baptism. the first years of his life had been passed in innocence and piety; the fear of being seduced by the world, and the wish to consecrate himself wholly to god, made him take the resolution, at the age of fifteen, to enter the order of regular canons, in the convent of st. vincent, at lisbon. two years afterwards, in order to avoid the frequent visits of his friends, which interfere with habits of retirement, he asked permission of his superior to remove to the convent of santa cruz at coimbra, which is of the same order. he had some difficulty in obtaining this leave, because they had great esteem for him personally. he made use of the quiet he now enjoyed to apply himself to the study of sacred literature, and, as if he had foreseen what he was to do at a future period of his life, he not only taught himself what was requisite for his own sanctification, but also what was useful for instructing others in the paths of virtue; he gathered also from the holy scriptures, and from the study of the fathers, what could serve to confirm the truths of faith, and to impugn error. the assiduity with which he pursued his studies, together with the excellence of his memory, and his surpassing talents, with the light he received from heaven, rendered him in a short time very learned. the relics of the five friars minor who had been martyred at morocco, and which were taken to santa cruz, at coimbra, at that time, inspired in his heart an anxious desire to die for jesus christ as they had done, and made him entertain the thought of becoming a member of that order, as the school of martyrdom. some old authors add that st. francis, who was then at assisi, appeared to him, and induced him to embrace his institute, foretelling him what would happen. the friars minor of the convent of st. anthony of olivares, near coimbra, having come to the canons regular of santa cruz to quest, ferdinand could not control his zeal, but taking them aside, he opened to them the wish he had to enter their community. they were highly pleased on hearing this, and fixed the day with him for putting his design into execution. in the meantime, he asked leave of the superior of santa cruz to effect the change, and with great difficulty obtained it. the friars minor returned on the appointed day, and gave him the habit of the order, in the convent of santa cruz itself, and took him back with them to that of st. anthony. the loss of so estimable a member was very distressing to the canons; one of them who felt it more than the others, said to him with bitterness, as he left the house:--"go, perhaps you shall become a saint." to which ferdinand answered with humility:--"when you hear that it is so, you will doubtless give praise to god." he was not satisfied with having changed his order; he chose likewise to change his name, in order by that means to disappoint those who might endeavor to seek for him; and as st. anthony was the titular saint of the convent, he begged the superior to call him anthony, which is the name he was ever after known by, and to which was added of padua, because his body reposes in that city, and is there honored by the faithful. the wish to shed his blood for the faith of jesus christ, which was the source of his vocation, was constantly increasing in his mind and gave him no rest. he solicited leave from the superiors to go into africa, which was granted to him, as had been promised him, when he entered the order. being come into the land of the saracens, he was seized with a violent illness, which confined him the whole winter, and obliged him to return to spain in the spring for his recovery. he embarked for this purpose, but the almighty, who had destined him for the martyrdom of the apostolical life, and who intended by his means to convert an infinity of souls in italy and france, gave him a passage in a contrary direction. the wind drove the vessel he was in to sicily, where he landed, and from thence he went to assisi, where we shall meet him in the general chapter at st. mary of the angels. it was in the year , that the friars minor, angelus and albert, both natives of pisa, after having stayed some time at paris in order to arrange the first establishment there, crossed the channel to england, whither francis had sent them at the general chapter of . the religious of st. dominic had already a convent at canterbury, where they received the two new comers with great charity. king henry iii, who reigned at that time, settled them with royal magnificence at oxford. there he held his court, and he conceived so great a liking for them that he had a lodge built near their convent, to which he occasionally retired in order to converse with them. the reason which primarily induced him to show them so much consideration, was his having learnt from authentic sources what had occurred to them on their journey from canterbury to oxford. the prior, the sacristan, and the cellarer of the abbey of abingdon, who were at one of their farms, contrary to the usual practice of their order, where hospitality is always given, as recommended by st. benedict, refused it to these poor religious, and turned them from their doors, although it was at nightfall. a young religious, who was in their company, seeing that they were about to pass the night in the wood, introduced them secretly into the barn, brought them some food, and recommended himself urgently to their prayers. in the night he had a dreadful vision of the justice with which god visited the prior and the two others, but which did not fall on him, because he had been charitable. in the morning he went to them with a view of telling them what he had seen in his sleep, and found them all three dead in their beds. struck with astonishment he left the farm, from whence the two friars minor had departed before daybreak, and went to relate what had happened to the abbot of abingdon; they both had serious reflections on this subject, which ended in their entering into the order of friars minor. so extraordinary an occurrence could not be kept secret; many persons heard it; the king was made acquainted with it, and this caused the favorable reception he gave to angelus and albert. his open protection, with the sanctity of their lives, caused the institute to flourish throughout the kingdom. several doctors of theology embraced it; and subsequently robert maideston, bishop of hereford, an enlightened prelate of great distinction at court, obtained leave from gregory ix to give up his bishopric to take the poor habit of st. francis, under which he became a model of humility and poverty. three hundred years after, king henry viii destroyed all these monuments of science and religion, which his predecessor henry iii had raised with so much zeal, and tyrannically treated the successors of those who had been received with so much benevolence. the strange revolution which the incontinence and heresy of this prince brought about in england, reduced the friars minor, and all other missionaries, to the necessity of running greater risks in endeavoring to maintain the remnant of faith, than what they had to incur amongst the infidels. we suppress all comment on so deplorable a subject, and we are satisfied with offering up our prayers to the almighty that he might deign to cast the eyes of his mercy upon those islands which formerly gave so many saints to the church; that by his grace, the talent and learning which are found there, may be employed in searching for the truth and appreciating that truth which the illustrious pope st. gregory had taught there in the sixth century; that these talents may be no longer employed in the defence of a variety of sects, equally at variance with the doctrines of antiquity, condemned by the principles of the christian religion, and by the rules of right reasoning; and that it shall no longer be said that men of learning make use of the light they have received and cultivated, to countenance every description of falsehood; so that, as st. leo said of idolatrous rome, dictating to almost all other nations, she herself was the slave of all their errors. francis, having received the resignation of his vicar general, on his return from his visitations, deferred the choice of his successor till the assembly of the chapter which was held on whitsunday. he consulted god on the election, who made known to him by revelation that brother elias should be restored; he communicated this to his companions, and when the chapter met, he named elias vicar-general. we may feel assured that after having deposed him for laxness, he would not again have placed him at the head of his order, had he not been certain that god himself had ordered it. as soon as the saints are made aware of the will of god, they have no thought but of obeying, whether it be that they know his reasons, or that they be hidden from them. thus, three hundred years before st. francis, st. stephen, the third abbot of citeaux, did not fail sending arnaud to morimond to be its first abbot, although he knew by divine inspiration, that this post would be prejudicial to him, and that it would not turn out well: it was enough for him that it was god's will that he should be so sent. thus we find in holy writ that eliseus, by god's order to elias, consecrated hazael king of syria, who, he foresaw would bring such great evils on the people of god, that the foresight moved him to tears. human prudence must not censure in the saints what they have only done from supernatural views, against their own impressions, and their own inclinations. in these extraordinary cases we must only adore the counsels of divine wisdom, without endeavoring to penetrate them: we must acknowledge, as tobias did, that all his ways are ways of mercy, truth, and justice; and say with one of the prophets: "thy loss comes from thyself." at the chapter francis sat at the feet of elias and, as his infirmities prevented him from making himself heard, it was through elias that he proposed all that he wished to communicate to the assembly. towards the close he pulled him by the tunic and told him in a low tone of voice his intention of sending some of the brethren into parts of upper germany, into which they had not yet penetrated. elias laid the affair before the brethren in the following terms: "my brethren, this is what the brother says" (for thus they designated francis, as a mark of great respect). "there is a part of germany, the inhabitants of which are christians and devout; they go, as you know, through our country during the heats with long staves and great jack-boots, singing the praises of god and his saints, and thus visit the places of devotion. i sent some of our brethren into their land, who returned often having been sorely ill-treated. for this reason, i compel no one to go thither, but if there are any sufficiently zealous for the glory of god and the salvation of souls, to undertake this journey i promise him the same merit as is attached to obedience, and even more than if he made a voyage over the sea." about ninety offered themselves for the mission which they considered as an opportunity for suffering martyrdom. the chief was named with the title of provincial minister of germany, and brother caesar, a german, was selected for that office. he was an ecclesiastic of spire, who had been drawn into the order by the preaching of brother elias, some time before, he himself having the character of a good preacher. he had permission to select those whom he desired to take with him from among those who had volunteered; however, he only chose twenty-seven, twelve of whom were priests, and fifteen lay-brethren, among whom there were some germans, and some hungarians, excellent preachers. he remained nearly three months in the valley of spoleto, with leave from francis, and sent his companions into lombardy to prepare themselves for the great work they were about to undertake; then they set forth dividing themselves into small groups of three and four. we shall further on give the details of their journey, and of their labors and success. in the choice which casar made of those whom he thought adapted to the german mission, something occurred which at first was amusing, but which turned out very serious and very useful. some one having suggested to him to take one of the brethren named jourdain, he went to him and said:--"and you brother jourdain, you will come with us?" "i?" replied he, "i am not one of yours; if i rose up, it was not with any intention of going with you, it was to embrace those who were about to go into germany, and who, i am certain, will all be martyred." he was so apprehensive that the germans by their cruelty, and the heretics of lombardy by their artifices, would be the causes of his losing his faith, that he daily prayed to god for the favor of being kept away from the one and from the other. casar, continuing to urge him to go with him, and jourdain continuing to refuse, they went to the vicar general, who, after having been informed how the matter stood, said to jourdain:--"my brother, i command you, on your holy obedience, to decide absolutely upon going into germany or not going." this order put his conscience in a dilemma: if he should not go, he feared its reproach for having followed his own will, and did not like to lose a glorious crown; and, on the other hand, he could not determine on going, thinking the germans so cruel as he had been led to believe. in order to come to a conclusion, he consulted one of the religious who had greatly suffered in the first mission, and had been stripped in hungary no less than fifteen times, who said to him:--"go to brother elias, and tell him that you are neither willing to go into germany nor to stay here, but that you will do whatsoever he shall desire you to do. you will hardly have addressed him, then your difficulties will be done away." he followed this advice, and elias ordered him by the obligation of obedience to accompany brother casar into germany. he went and labored assiduously, and more than any of the others, to extend the order throughout the country. his obedience quieted his mind for a man is never more satisfied with himself than when he obeys. "experience shows," says st. bernard, "that the yoke of obedience is light, and that self-will is oppressive." anthony had heard in sicily that the chapter was to assemble at st. mary of the angels, and although he was still in a state of weakness, he had come to it with philippinus, a young lay brother of castile. when the chapter was over, the brethren were sent back to their convents by the vicar general, but no one asked to have anthony, because no one knew him, and he appeared so feeble, that he did not seem fit for work. he offered himself therefore to brother gratian, who was provincial of bologna, or of romagna, whom he begged as a master, to instruct him in the rules of regular discipline, making no mention of his studies, or of any talent he had, and showing no other desire than to know and love the crucified jesus. gratian delighted with these his sentiments, asked to have him, and took him with him into his province, with philippinus, who was sent to citta di castello, and from thence to columbario, in tuscany, where he died a holy death. anthony, who only wished for solitude, had leave from the provincial to live at the hermitage of mount st. paul, near bologna, where he wished to have a cell cut in the rock, which was separated from all the others; this the brother who had cut it out for himself ceded to him. there he lived in as much solitude as obedience allowed him, devoting himself to contemplation, fasting on bread and water, and practising such other austerities, as to be thereby so weakened, that, according to the savings of his brethren, he could hardly stand when he came to them. although he was full of zeal, he did not dare attempt to preach; the martyrdom which he had escaped in africa had rendered him timid; he abandoned himself to divine providence, without any other anxiety than that of inciting himself to the more perfect love of god, and strengthening himself in the hope of enjoying the good things of heaven, and resisting the attacks of the tempter, who strove to dissuade him from the holy exercise of prayer. living thus in great simplicity among his unpretending brethren, he disguised under a plain exterior the vast light he received from heaven; but by that humility he deserved to be brought forward for the accomplishment of the designs of providence, who generally prepares those in secret, whom he destines to splendid ministrations. book iv after the chapter, francis, notwithstanding the bad state of his health, actuated by his zeal, undertook to preach repentance in the towns adjacent to assisi, where he dilated, in forcible language, on vice and virtue, and the sufferings and happiness of a future life. the inhabitants of canaria were so moved by his preaching, that they followed him in crowds, forsaking their usual occupations. many also, from the neighboring villages, joined them, and all together solicited him to teach them how to profit by his instructions. many married men were desirous of separating themselves from their wives, in order to embrace the religious state, and many married women were anxious to shut themselves up in cloisters; but the holy patriarch, not wishing to break up well-assorted marriages, nor to depopulate the country, advised them to serve god in their own houses, and promised to give them a rule by which they might progress in virtue and live as religious, without practising the austerities of that state of life. he was under the necessity of repeating the same injunctions in several towns in tuscany, particularly in florence, where similar views prevailed, and where they had already commenced building a monastery for females, who were desirous of renouncing the world. while he was yet ruminating on the mode of life he should prescribe for them, he assembled them all, and formed them into two congregations: the one of men, and the other of women; and having given each of them a president, they gave themselves separately up to exercises of piety and practices of mercy, with so much fervor, that a contemporary author compares them to the christians whom tertullian so eloquently eulogizes. with the alms which the two congregations collected, they built a hospital for the sick and aged, on the outskirts of the town where all the virtues of charity were assiduously exercised; an establishment which is extant to this day. st. antoninus, when archbishop of florence, removed these pious assemblies to a locality near the church of st. martin, for the convenience of the poor. the vicinity of the church and their good works procured for them the name of the "good men of st. martin;" and they were afterwards called the "penitents of st. francis," because they followed the rule of the third order of penance, which the saint instituted. one day st. francis having gone from florence to gagiano, near poggibonzi, in tuscany, met a shop-keeper of his acquaintance, whose name was lucchesio, who had been very avaricious, and an enthusiastic partisan of the faction of the guelphs, but who, having been converted a few months before, now lived a very christian-like life, gave away great sums in alms, attended the sick in hospitals, received strangers hospitably into his house, and endeavored to instil similar sentiments into bonadonna, his wife. they had already asked francis to put them in a way of sanctifying their lives, which should be suitable to their position; and the holy man had given them this answer: "i have been thinking of late of instituting a third order, in which married persons might serve god perfectly; and i think you could not do better than to enter it." after having given the subject serious consideration, lucchesio and his wife entreated him to admit them into this new order. he made them assume a modest and simple dress, of a grey color, also a cord with several knots in it for a girdle, and he prescribed verbally certain pious exercises, which they were to follow until such time as he should have composed the rule. this was the beginning of the third order of st. francis, which many persons in the environs of poggibonzi embraced, and which was soon established in florence by the congregation of men and women of which we have just spoken. the following year, at latest, the founder composed a rule for this order, which he called the order of the brethren of penance, in which the sisters were comprised, which was also called the third order, or the order of tertiaries, as relative to the two older orders: the order of friars minors, which is the first, and that of the poor clares, which is the second. this rule was subsequently confirmed by pope nicholas iv, and leo xiii, with some changes, which they considered advisable as well in regard to the times as to the order itself. the holy patriarch manifests therein not only the zeal which animated him in all that concerned the purity of the faith, but also the prudence which guided all his actions. he requires that all those who apply for admission into the order shall be carefully examined in the catholic faith, and their submission to the authority of the church, and he directs that they shall only be received after having made profession of all the orthodox truths; and that great care shall be taken not to admit any heretic, nor any one suspected of heresy; and should any such be detected after having been admitted, he insists on their being immediately informed against. he, likewise, directs that their previous conduct may be inquired into, to ascertain whether any notorious crimes are imputed to them, or whether their morals are irreproachable, and he desires that they be warned to restore what they have which belongs to any other person; he also forbids receiving any married female into the order without the consent of her husband. the profession consists in a promise to keep all god's commandments, and to perform such penances as the visitor shall enjoin for faults committed in breach of the practices required by the rule. the habit is similar to what was given to lucchesio and his wife; but so, that this may be dispensed with, according to the state of life of the persons, and the customs of the country in which they may be. the spiritual exercises laid down in the rule, have nothing in them which can interfere with the different stations of persons living in the world. days of fasting and abstinence are prescribed, but modified prudently for the infirm, for pregnant women, for travellers, and for laboring people; and it is clearly explained that these observances are not obligatory under pain of sin, and that they only bind the transgressor to perform the penance imposed on him, unless the transgression has at the same time contravened any law of god, or commandment of the church. st. francis, moreover, strenuously recommends to the brethren and sisters, to avoid all words tending to swearing or imprecation, the theatre, dancing, and all profane meetings; to undertake no law-suits, and to live in fraternal union; to take great care of the sick of the order, to bury the dead, and to pray for them. he adds to this, an article which is deserving of peculiar notice; it is, that all persons who enter the order and have property over which they have the disposal, shall make their wills within a few months after their profession, lest they should die intestate. we see that his intention was to make them think on death, and to have their minds free for meditating on the important affair of their salvation, and to prevent those dissentions which frequently occur after the death of such as have not regulated their temporal affairs, before being called away. wills which are made during a last illness are frequently exposed to deceit and fraud. they are never better made than when executed while the testator is in good health, in possession of all his faculties. by the institution of the third order, francis proposes to himself to reanimate the fervor of the faithful, to induce all the world, those in orders, laics, married persons of either sex, and such as were living in a state of celibacy, to a stricter observance of god's commandments, to live a more christian and catholic life, and to add the practice of virtues to the duties of civil life. his views met with astonishing success; the order was established, and spread with the greatest rapidity through all conditions of life. cardinals, bishops, emperors, empresses, kings, queens, considered themselves honored in being admitted into it, and it has given to the church an infinite number of saints and blessed of either sex, who are publicly revered with her sanction. wading says, that in his day, (that is in ,) there were at the court of madrid more than sixty lords who belonged to the third order; and cardinal trejo, who had joined it, wrote to him in these terms on the subject of the works of st. francis, which that author was about to give to the public with learned notes. "you praise me with some surprise, that wearing the purple of a cardinal, i should have taken the habit and made solemn profession to adhere to the rules of the third order of st. francis. could i do less than devote myself wholly to his order, i, who owe to him all that i have, and all that i am? does not the cord of st. francis deserve to gird even royal purple? st. louis, king of france, st. elizabeth, queen of hungary, wore it, as well as many other sovereigns and princesses. in our own day, philip iii, king of spain, died in the habit of the blessed father; queen elizabeth, wife of philip iv, the reigning monarch of spain, and the princess mary, his sister, have made their profession in the third order. why, then, should it be a subject of astonishment to you, that a cardinal should cover his purple with a garment of ash color, and gird himself with a cord? if this dress seems vulgar and vile, i require it the more, because, finding myself raised to a high degree of honor, i must humble myself the more in order to avoid pride. but is not the garb of st. francis, which is of ash color, a real purple, which may adorn the dignity of kings and cardinals? yes, it is a true purple, dyed in the blood of jesus christ, and in the blood which issued from the stigmates of his servant. it gives, therefore, a royal dignity to those who wear it. what have i done, therefore, in clothing myself with this garment? i have added purple to purple, the purple of royalty, to the purple of the cardinalate; thus, far from being humiliated by it, i have reason to fear that i have done myself too much honor, and that i derive from it too much glory." these sentiments of this learned and pious cardinal, are well calculated to silence the proud and irreligious spirits who turn into ridicule practices which the church approves, and which her most illustrious children embrace with fervor. we have seen queen ann of austria receive, at paris, the holy habit of a penitent, and make profession of the rule of the third order of st. francis; queen maria theresa of austria, wife of the renowned king, louis xiv, follow this example, and even permit herself to be chosen superior of the sisters of the congregation, established in the church of the great convent of the observance, under the protection of st. elizabeth of hungary, and assist at the various pious exercises with great edification. the holy see has loaded the brethren and sisters of the third order with many spiritual favors; and has granted them many privileges and indulgences. it has given to them a participation in all the merits which are gained in the other two orders. what is singular is, that shortly after its institution, congregations of tertiaries were formed, in which they lived in community of property, making the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and practising the works of mercy. god and the sovereign pontiff raised them to a religious body. thus, besides the secular third order, there is now a religious one, of both sexes, which pope leo x confirmed and extended by his bull, dated th of january, , in which he abridged the rule and adapted it to the observances of the religious state. st. elizabeth of hungary, being a widow, joined the three vows of religion to the profession of the third order of st. francis, three years after the death of the blessed patriarch, which makes her to be justly considered as the mother of the religious of both sexes of the third order, since she was the first tertiary who took these solemn vows. lucchesio and his wife, who were the first tertiaries whom st. francis received, acquired by the exercise of prayer and good works, a holiness which god honored by many miracles during their life and after their death; but the wife was sanctified by the husband. although she had embraced, after his example, the state of piety, she continued to disapprove the great donations of alms which he made, and to prevent them as much as was in her power, in consequence of that spirit of avarice and self-interest, which constantly induces such tempers to fear that they shall come to want. one day, lucchesio having given all the bread that was in his house to the poor, he begged his wife to give something to others who followed. she flew into a passion, like the wife of tobias; and having reproached him with the care he took of strangers to the prejudice of those of his own household, she said that it was quite plain that his fasts and watchings had disordered his brain. the husband, as patient as he was charitable, was not irritated by these reproaches, but quietly requested his wife to look into the place where the bread was kept, thinking of him, who by his power had satiated several thousand persons with a few loaves and fishes. she did so, and found a large quantity of fresh bread, sufficient to supply the wants of all the poor. this miracle had such an effect upon her, that from that time forward, he had no occasion to exhort her to the performance of works of mercy; both husband and wife gave themselves up to them with emulation, and devoted themselves to them until their deaths. the husband's charity shows us that almsgiving does not impoverish; but that, on the contrary, god increases, even sometimes by miracles, the property of such as give liberally; and the conversion of lucchesio's wife shows that the spirit of interest and avarice, covered by pretence of economy, renders piety false and deceitful. after having established his third order, francis preached in several parts of tuscany, and received an establishment at columbario, in a very solitary situation, which was the more agreeable to him from the great attraction he had for contemplation. he had it erected under the title of the annunciation of the blessed virgin, in honor of her divine maternity; he then returned to st. mary of the angels. an abbess was requested from the monastery of st. damian for that of moncel, of the same institute, which was forming at florence; he consulted thereon the cardinal protector, and by his advice he selected agnes, the sister of clare. agnes, out of obedience, set out willingly; she found a very fervent, very united, and very submissive community, and the sovereign pontiff granted all that she required for their spiritual wants. but agnes was seriously grieved to have to part from clare, and to satisfy her heart, she wrote to her a most affectionate letter, full of the most tender sentiments, in which we see that the feelings of nature are elevated and sanctified by virtue, instead of being weakened. at that time, about the month of october, francis obtained the famous indulgence of st. mary of the angels, or of portiuncula, of which we shall here relate the circumstances. the great lights and inspirations which this holy man received in prayer, discovered to him the wretched state of sinners; he deplored their blindness, and was moved to compassion, and he often prayed for them. one night, when he was soliciting their conversion from god with great fervor, he was directed by an angel to go to the church, where he would find jesus christ and his blessed mother, accompanied by a host of celestial spirits. greatly rejoiced, he went and prostrated himself to render due homage to the majesty of the son of god. our saviour said to him: "francis, the zeal which thou and thy followers have for the salvation of souls is such, that it entitles thee to solicit something in their favor, for the glory of my name." in the midst of the marvels which enraptured him, he made the following prayer: "o jesus, my saviour, i entreat thee, although i am but a miserable sinner, to have the goodness to grant to men, that all those who shall visit this church may receive a plenary indulgence of all their sins, after having confessed them to a priest; and i beg the blessed virgin, thy mother, the general advocate of humankind, to intercede that i may obtain this my request." the blessed virgin did intercede, and jesus christ spoke the following words: "francis, what thou askest is great, but thou wilt receive still greater favors; i grant thee this one; i desire thee, nevertheless, to go to my vicar, to whom i have given power to bind and to loose, and to solicit him for the same indulgence." the companions of the saint who were in their respective cells, heard all these things; they saw a great light which filled the church, and the multitude of angels; but a respectful fear prevented them from approaching nearer. in the early morning, francis assembled them, and forbade their speaking of this miraculous event, and then set out with masse of marignan for perugia, where pope honorius then was. when he came into his presence, he said to him: "most holy father, some years ago i repaired a small church in your dominions; i beg you to grant to it a free indulgence, without any obligation of making an offering." the pope replied, that the request could not reasonably be granted, because it was but just that he who wished to gain an indulgence should render himself deserving of it by some means, particularly by some work of charity. "but," added he, "for how many years do you ask me for this indulgence?" "most holy father," replied francis, "may it please your holiness, not to give me so many years but so many souls." "and in what way do you desire to have souls?" rejoined the pope. "i wish," added francis, "that it may be the good pleasure of your holiness, that those persons who enter the church of st. mary of the angels, are contrite, shall have confessed their sins, and have properly received absolution, may receive an entire remission of their sins, as well in this world as in the next, from their baptism, to the time of their so entering the church." the pope then said to him, "francis, what you solicit is a thing of great importance. the roman court has not been accustomed to grant any similar indulgence." "most holy father," returned francis, "i ask not this for myself, it is jesus christ who sent me; i come from him." upon which, the pope said publicly three times: "it is my desire that it be granted to you." the cardinals who were present, represented to him, that in granting so important an indulgence, he was subverting the throne of the holy law, and that of the sepulchre of the holy apostles. "the concession is made," replied the pope, "nor is it right it should be revoked; but let us modify it." and recalling francis, he said to him: "we grant you this indulgence which you have solicited. it is for all years in perpetuity; but only during one natural day; from one evening including the night, to the evening of the following day." at these words francis humbly bowed down his head. as he went away, the pope asked him: "whither art thou going, simple man? what certitude hast thou of what thou hast just been granted?" "holy father," he replied, "your word is sufficient for me. if this indulgence is the work of god, he will make it manifest. let jesus christ and his blessed mother, and the angels, be the notary, on this occasion, the paper, and the witnesses. i require no other authenticated document." this was the effect of the great confidence he had in god. he left perugia to return to st. mary of the angels, and midway he stopped at a village named colle, at a leper hospital, where he rested awhile. on awaking, he had recourse to prayer; then he called masse, and said to him with great exultation: "i can assure you that the indulgence which has been granted to me by the sovereign pontiff is confirmed in heaven." the day had not been fixed, however, until the beginning of the year . clare wished to see once more the church of st. mary of the angels in which she had renounced the world, and to take another meal with francis, her spiritual father. he refused her his leave for some time; but his companions having represented to him that he treated a virgin whom he himself had consecrated to jesus christ, with too much harshness, he consented to what she wished. an appropriate day was fixed on, and she came to the convent of portiuncula, accompanied by some of her nuns, and some friars minor who went on purpose to the convent of st. damian. after having prayed fervently in the church, and visited the convent, the friars and the nuns seated themselves round the reflection which st. francis had laid out on the ground, in pursuance of his usual practice of humility, which was his daily observance, whenever it was in his power. the first nourishment they took was for the soul. the holy patriarch spoke of god, but in so moving a manner, and with so much unction and animation, that all who heard him were thrown into ecstasy, as he was himself. at the same time, the convent, the church, and the woods seemed to the inhabitants of assisi and environs, to be on fire. many ran thither to afford their aid; but finding everything in good order, they entered the convent, where they saw, with still greater surprise, the whole assembly in a state of ecstasy. by that they were made aware that what had seemed to them to be a fire, was the type of the fire which inflamed these holy bosoms, and they returned greatly edified. by this marvel the lord clearly showed that he approved the request, which clare had made, to be allowed to come to the portiuncula; as by another marvel he approved of the prayer which st. scholastica made to detain her brother, st. benedict, whom she wished to hear speak of the happiness of the future life, in the place in which they had just dined together. such, was the condescension of his goodness for the consolation of these two saints, and it is thus that, according to the words of the prophet, "he fulfils the wishes of those who fear him." the repast finished without any one having chosen to eat anything, so much were they filled with celestial aliment; and clare returned to the monastery of st. damian, where her sisterhood received her with so much the more satisfaction, as they had been fearful that they would have given her the direction of some new establishment, as they had, a short time before, sent her sister agnes to florence as abbess. they knew that francis had said to her on other occasions: "be prepared to go wherever it may be necessary;" and that she had obediently answered, "my father i am ready to go whithersoever you may send me." her having gone out seemed to them a preparation for some longer journey and their grief for having lost agnes, their dear companion increased the fears they had, lest they should lose clare, also, who was in their regard a most excellent mistress of spiritual life. but they had not, thereafter, any similar alarms; this was the only time in forty-two years that their holy mother left the enclosure. elias, the vicar general, gave francis great uneasiness, by his erroneous views. many of the friars minor came to see their patriarch, who received them with every mark of kindness. the vicar made great distinction between them. he was very particular in honoring those whom science and dignities rendered considerable in the order; he never failed giving them the first places, and he took care to satisfy all they needed; while he left the others in the lowest places, and often without attending to their necessary wants. in his station he did what the apostle st. james forbids all christians to do. their common father, who could not endure that so great a difference should be made, particularly amongst persons of the same institute, affected, one day, at table, after grace had been said, to call two of the most simple of the brethren, and to place one on each side of him, without showing any attention to the merits of others. he did this, not because he disapproved of peculiar consideration being shown to those to whom it is due, according to the maxim of st. paul, in consequence of their character, their dignity, or their personal qualifications, but because he did not choose that these considerations should be to the disadvantage of those who had not similar circumstances to recommend them, and to whom, according to the same apostle, besides the feelings of charity to which they and all others are entitled, a certain degree of honor should be shown. the vicar general, who was not impressed with a similar way of thinking, was highly indignant at this act of the saint, and murmuring to himself, he said: "ah! brother francis, it is quite certain that your extreme simplicity will be the ruin of the order. you place alongside of you, men who have neither learning nor talents, and you affront those who are the support of the order by their science." francis, who by a supernatural revelation, was made aware of what his vicar had passing in his mind, replied immediately to his thought: "and you, brother elias, you do much greater injury to the order by your vanity, and by the prudence of the flesh, with which you are filled. the judgments of god are impenetrable; he knows you as you are, and nevertheless, he chose that you should be superior of the order; and it is his desire that i leave it in your hands. alas! i fear that the people, and he who governs them, resemble each other, and that god has only given a pastor, such as he foresees the flock will be." the holy patriarch well knew that the whole of the flock would not be corrupted by brother elias, and that the majority of the members would resist him, as it came to pass. and thus the fear which he experienced in general terms, was a warning to keep them all to their duty. but what he added was a true prophecy: "unhappy man, as you are, you will not die in this order; god has so decreed. you have been weighed in the balances, and have been found wanting, because you are puffed up with the science of the world." the following is the way in which this matter is related in the ancient legend which is followed by st. antoninus. francis, knowing by a revelation that brother elias would die out of the order, and would be damned, avoided conversing with him, and even seeing him. elias noticed this, and did not rest till he discovered the reason. terrified and dismayed at such a prophecy, he threw himself at the feet of his kind master, and entreated him to intercede with god to prevent one of the flock committed to his care, from perishing eternally: "let not the sentence which has been revealed to you, discourage you; for the lord may change his decree, if the sinner corrects his sin. i have such confidence in your prayers, my very dear father, that i should think they would mitigate my sufferings even if i were in hell, as you have been told i shall be. pray for me, my father; pray, and i have no doubt but that god will modify his decree, and that i shall be converted." francis prayed, and obtained from god that brother elias should not be damned, but he could not obtain the reversal of the decree which said that he should not die in the order. it was, in fact, out of the order that he died; but, previous to his death, he gave great signs of contrition. wading makes on this a judicious remark, worthy of a sound theologian. he says that brother elias, who was universally admitted to be a learned man, was not ignorant that the decrees of god which are absolute, are immutable, because he himself is incapable of change; but he also knew that the lord sometimes expressed himself in absolute words against sinners, which decrees are merely threats, which may be changed by their repentance, without his changing, according to what he has said by the prophet jeremy: "i will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. if that nation against which i have spoken shall repent of their evil, i also will repent of the evil that i thought to do them." jonas sent from god, had positively announced that in forty days nineveh should be destroyed, and nevertheless the penitence of the ninevites hindered the destruction of their city. st. gregory says, that in this sense god changed his decrees, but did not change his design; and st. thomas says, that god proposes the change of certain things, but that in his will no change takes place. sinners, however, must not abuse this doctrine, and imagine that god only threatens them, and that he will not damn them, for he has an absolute will to damn eternally those who die in mortal sin, as well as to crown with immortal glory such as die in a state of grace. in truth, it is his wish that sinners should be converted, and he places the means in their power by his mercy: "but," says st. augustine, "he has not promised a to-morrow to your delay;" and as the apostle has it: "according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of god, who will render to every man according to his works." the example of the holy patriarch, who had sought three times, the crown of martyrdom, and the triumph of the five brethren martyred at morocco, had inspired many with an ardent desire to die for jesus christ. shortly after elias had been restored as vicar general, daniel, minister in the province of calabria, asked leave to go and preach the faith to the moors, with six other brethren, whose names were samuel, donule or daniel, leo, hugolin, nicholas, and angelus. having received the permission of the vicar general, and the blessing of francis, they embarked in a port of tuscany, from whence they sailed to tarragona. their first intention was to have gone to morocco, to mingle their blood with that of their martyred brethren, but some reasons, probably favorable to their intention, induced them to go to ceuta. daniel arrived first with three of his companions, the master of the vessel not having thought proper to take on board more. they lived out of the town, in a village inhabited by traders from pisa, genoa, and marseilles, because christians might not enter the town without a particular permission. their occupation here was to preach to these traders, until they should be joined by their companions, who arrived there on the th of september. the following friday, which was the first of october, they consulted together as to their future plans, and the aids they should require in the formidable combat they were about to sustain. on the saturday, they confessed and received the holy communion, without which, when it is possible to receive it, st. cyprian would not suffer confessors to be exposed to martyrdom for the faith, because it is the body and the blood of jesus christ which gives the strength to endure it. st. chrysostom and st. bernard, also, say that it is the firmest defence which can be opposed to the temptations of the devil, and to the allurements of sin, which are powerful motives for having recourse to frequent communion. the seven brothers went forth from the holy table, according to the expression of st. chrysostom, "as roaring lions, breathing fire and flames," and they could not restrain the zeal which animated them. on the evening of the same day, they washed each other's feet, in order to follow the example of the son of god, who washed his disciples' feet before his passion; and very early on the sunday morning, before there were any persons in the streets, they entered the town, having their heads strewed with ashes, and commenced crying out with a loud voice, "there is no salvation but through jesus christ." the moors soon collected, abused and beat them, and led them to the king. the missionaries then repeated, in presence of the learned in the law, what they had previously said to the people, "that it is requisite to believe in jesus christ; that there is no salvation in any other name than his," which they proved by the most forcible arguments. the king, who fully understood that in thus upholding the name of jesus christ they rejected that of mahomet, looked upon them as idiots, and thought that their shaven heads, with a crown of hair round them, was a proof of their folly. however, to prove their constancy, he had them confined in a loathsome jail, where he kept them eight days in irons, and where they were cruelly treated. their confinement did not prevent their finding means to write to the christians who were in the vicinity of ceuta. their letter was addressed to hugh, cure of the genoese, and to two religious, one of their own order, and the other of the order of friars preachers, who had just returned from the farthest part of mauritania. they blessed, in the first instance, the father of mercies, who consoled them in their tribulation; and, after having quoted several passages from the scriptures to justify their mission and to animate themselves to suffering, they assured their brethren that they had borne witness, and strongly argued in presence of the king, "that there is no salvation but in the name of jesus christ;" and they concluded by referring to god the glory of all that they had done. the judge, whose name was arbold, wishing to see what they did in prison, saw that they were no longer chained, that their faces shone with a splendid light, and that they sang the praises of god with extraordinary joy. the king, having been apprised of this, caused them to be brought before him on sunday, the tenth of october, and offered them great wealth if they would become mussulmen. they boldly replied, that they utterly despised all the things of this world and of the present life, in consequence of the happiness of the future life. they were then separated, and each was separately tempted, by promises and threats, but they were all found steadfast in their resolution. daniel, speaking with great energy, one of the moors cut him across the head with his scimitar, from which he did not even wince, and another exhorted him to embrace the law of mahomet, to save his life with honor. "wretch!" exclaimed daniel, "your mahomet and all his followers are but ministers of satan, and your koran is but a series of lies; be no longer misled, but embrace the christian faith." as soon as the seven brothers were collected together, six of them threw themselves at daniel's feet, who had procured this mission for them, and who was their leader, and said to him with tears of joy: "we give thanks to god and to you, our father, for having procured for us the crown of martyrdom; our souls will follow yours; bless us and die; the struggle will be soon over, and we shall enjoy eternal peace." daniel tenderly embraced them, gave them his blessing, and encouraged them by these words: "let us rejoice in the lord; this is for us a festival day; angels surround us, the heavens are opened to receive us; this day we shall receive the crown of martyrdom, which will last forever." in fact, the king, seeing that they were resolute, and not to be shaken, condemned them to be beheaded. they were stripped, had their hands tied behind them, and were taken to the place of execution, whither they went as to a banquet, preceded by a herald, who proclaimed the cause of their death, and where, after having recommended their souls to god, they were decapitated, on the tenth of october, in the year . infidel children and adults broke their skulls to pieces, and mutilated the remains of the holy martyrs; but these precious relics were gathered up by the christians, and removed into the storehouse of the marseillese, and were afterwards buried in their dwellings beyond the walls of ceuta. it is asserted that some years afterwards they were transferred to the church of st. mary, near morocco, and that god manifested them by miracles, and particularly by a splendid light, which even the moors saw during the night; and that some time afterwards an infant of portugal, having obtained them from a king of morocco, had them removed into spain, where fresh miracles rendered them celebrated. whatever truth there may be in the account of these translations, it is not known now where the relics of these seven martyrs are. this is certain--that the faithful had their memory in great veneration, and that in , the friars minor solicited leave from pope leo x, to recite an office in their honor, which leave he most willingly granted to them, placing them in the number of martyrs recognized by the church, as they are commemorated in the roman martyrology on the th of october. we may imagine the satisfaction their triumph gave to francis, from the ardent desire he always evinced for the crown of martyrdom, and the tender love he bore for his children. he had, moreover, in this year another great consolation on this subject. pope honorius sent to almost all the bishops of europe, desiring them to send him four men from each province, or at least two, noted for their science and the integrity of their lives, whom it was his intention to commission to preach to the idolaters, and to the saracens, for whose conversion he was most anxious, and amongst the number thus selected there were many friars minors, and friars preachers who generously exposed themselves to every sort of peril for the salvation of souls. the intimate union which the love of god had formed between st. dominic and st. francis, induces us to note here, that the blessed patriarch of the dominicans died this year, on the sixth day of august at the age of fifty-one years. the eminent sanctity of his life, the great miracles he performed; the ardor and splendor of his zeal for the destruction of heresy; his inviolable attachment to the holy see; his tender piety to the blessed virgin, whom he causes to be generally and daily honored in the devotion of the rosary; and the establishment of his order, so useful by its science, by its piety, and by the great service it still renders to the church, cause him to be illustrious through the entire church. among the friars minor, there is not one who, if animated by the spirit of st. francis, must not have a special devotion for him, and a respectful affection for those of his order. charity, which inflamed the breast of francis, soon drew him from his retreat. he set out at the beginning of the year , for the terra di lavoro, apulia and calabria, and, in the course of this journey, god worked many splendid miracles by his hand. passing, first, through the town of toscanella, on the road to rome, he received hospitality from a knight, whose only son was lame in both legs, and was in a state of suffering through his whole body. the afflicted father asked him to procure the cure of his son from god; he abstained from doing this for some time out of humility, esteeming himself unworthy of being loved by others, but being prevailed upon by reiterated entreaties, he placed his hands upon him, and made the sign of the cross upon the boy, who, at the same moment, stood upright and firm on his legs, and was entirely cured, to the great astonishment of his whole family. at rome, he made acquaintance, and became intimate with a nobleman, named mathew de rubeis, of the illustrious family of the orsini. one day, on which he had been invited to dinner there, and having got there at the appointed hour, not finding his host yet returned from town, he joined, unperceived, the poor to whom they were giving a meal, and he received the alms with them. the nobleman arrived shortly after, and inquired where brother francis was, and as they did not find him, he declared he would not eat his dinner, if he did not come. while they were looking for him, he saw him seated in the yard with a group of poor. he went to him, and said: "brother francis, since you won't dine with me, i am come to dine with you;" which he did, placing himself on the ground near him, and in the group, where he found himself very comfortable in that company. when he heard that the holy man had established a third order for secular persons of all ranks, he prayed for admission into it, and had himself instructed in the practices to be observed. the consideration which his rank in life gave him in the world, threw great splendor on the new institution, and drew many persons to it. there was a little child called john whom he requested francis to bless; the servant of god gave him his blessing; he took him in his arms and foretold to all there that he would bring great glory to his house, and that he would be sovereign pontiff. then, fixing his eyes upon the child, he spoke to him as if he had had the use of reason; he entreated him seriously, and in most affectionate terms, to be favorable to his order; after which the prophet continued as follows: "he will not be a religious of our order, but he will be its protector; he will not be reckoned among its children, but he will be acknowledged as its father; and our brethren will be delighted at seeing themselves under his shadow. i consider the immense benefits we shall receive from this child, i see them already in his little hands." such a prediction caused as much pleasure as surprise to the lord of the family of the orsini, but he never spoke of it till he saw its fulfilment, which happened fifty-five years afterwards. his son, cardinal, under the title of st. nicholas, was chosen pope in the year , and took the name of nicholas iii. his singular benevolence for the order of the friars minor showed that its holy founder had not spoken in vain to him in his infancy. from rome francis went to visit the grotto of st. benedict. he considered with great attention the bush covered with thorns, into which the great patriarch of the monastic life had the courage to throw himself, in order to overcome a temptation of the flesh. in admiration of such extraordinary fervor, he touched this bush as a sacred relic; he kissed it, and made on it the sign of the cross. god, in order to honor his two servants, changed it immediately into a beautiful rose-tree, the flowers of which have served in many cases for the cure of the sick; the place has since been held in greater respect. in a chapel which is near it, and which was consecrated by gregory ix, we see that pope, with francis on his left hand, who holds a scroll of paper, on which these words, taken from the gospel of st. luke, are written, "peace be to this house," words which he constantly used as a salutation. the remainder of his journey was remarkable for many other wonders which were worked through his means, in announcing the word of god. while preaching at gaeta, on the border of the sea, seeing that a crowd of people were anxious, from a devotional feeling, to touch him, he threw himself into a boat to avoid these demonstrations of respect, which were disagreeable to him. the boat, which had no sailors in it, floated to a certain distance out to sea, and then became stationary; from thence he gave instruction to those who were on the shore, and the crowd dispersing after having received his blessing, the boat returned of itself to its former place. st. bonaventure thereupon says:--"who, after this, will have a heart so hardened and so irreligious as to despise the preaching of francis, to which inanimate things lent their aid, as if they had reasoning faculties?" the inhabitants of gaeta, admiring the power which god gave to his servant, entreated him to stay some time in their town, and to permit them to build there a convent for his order. he assented to this, and the work was commenced forthwith. while the church was in progress, a carpenter was crushed by the falling of a beam. as the other workmen were carrying him home, francis, who was returning from the country, met them, and directed them to lay the dead man on the ground; he then made the sign of the cross on him, took him by the hand, called him by his name, and commanded him to arise. the dead man rose immediately and went back to his work. this is well-known in the country by successive tradition, and a small chapel has been erected, under due authority, on the spot where the miracle was performed, in order to perpetuate the memory thereof. the earliest authors of the life of our saint record a very singular miracle which he performed on his route, in the house of a gentleman. all the inhabitants of the place were gone to the great square to hear him preach. a female servant who had been left in a house to take care of a child, wishing to hear the sermon, left the child alone. on her return, she found the child dead, and half-boiled in a copper of hot water, into which it had fallen. she took it out, and in order to hide the disaster from the father and mother, she shut it up in a trunk; the parents, however, learnt their misfortune, which was the more afflicting as this was their only child. the husband entreated his wife not to let her distress appear, out of respect for the servant of god, who was to dine with them. during dinner, francis endeavored to inspire them with a holy joy, knowing what the almighty had in store for their consolation, and at the end of the dinner he feigned a wish to eat some apples. they expressed their regret that they had none to offer him; but pointing to the trunk in which the child was shut up, he said: "let them look there, and some will be found." it was in vain that they assured him that there were none there; he insisted on having the trunk opened. the gentleman, to oblige him, and with a view of hiding the object of their grief, opened the trunk, when, judge of his astonishment on finding his child alive and well, and, with a smiling countenance, holding an apple in each hand. transported with joy, he carried the child and placed it in the arms of the holy man. the people of capua were so moved by his preaching, and by the miracles he performed, particularly on his having saved from the waters a woman whom the river volturnus had carried off, that the town made him the offer of a convent. st. anastasius, bishop of civita di penna, gave him another, with great marks of regard, after having gone out to meet him, on an inspiration he had in his sleep that francis would come the next day to his town, a circumstance which is recorded by a painting in the church, and is explained in two latin verses. the servant of god having preached during the entire day at montella, went to pass the night in a wood in the vicinity of that town, where he seated himself with his companion under an evergreen oak. some persons who passed by, in the morning, perceived that there was no snow where the two religious sat, although there had been a heavy fall in the night, and they related the circumstance to the lord of montella, who sent for francis, and entreated him to remain in that country, or to leave some of his companions amongst them, for the instruction of the people. he left two, for whom they built a house on the very spot where heaven had been so favorable to him. the force which god gave to his discourses, and the miracles of which he made him the instrument, converted sinners, and animated the piety of the good. both the one and the other were anxious to retain him amongst them, or, at least, to have some of his religious. in this journey alone, he founded more than twenty houses, among which was one at amalfi, whither his devotion had led him to honor the relics of the apostle st. andrew. the inhabitants of acropoli, who at first had been deaf to his instruction, were penetrated with contrition, and gave him a convent, after having been reproached with the hardness of their hearts by a multitude of fish, that god caused to collect round a rock from which francis preached those truths which this people had refused to listen to. the emperor frederic ii was, at that time, with his court at bari. the servant of god went there, no doubt, to venerate the relics of the great bishop st. nicholas; he preached in the town, and as his discourses were always made suitable to the wants of his auditors, he spoke energetically on the dangers of the court, and particularly against impurity. on leaving bari, he found on the road a purse, which appeared to be full of money. his companion, who was aware of his great charity, said that he ought to take it for the poor. francis refused to do so, saying that it was only a snare of the devil, and that, if it was really money which had been lost, it would not be right to take what belonged to others to give away in alms; so they continued their route. his companion was not satisfied; he thought that an opportunity was lost of doing a good action, and he tired francis with his remonstrances. the holy man, who was very mild and very obliging, returned to the spot where the purse was, not intending to do what his companion wished, but to expose to him the artifice of the evil spirit. a young man was passing at the time, in whose presence he told his companion to take up the purse; he, trembling from a secret misgiving of what was about to happen, would have been glad not to have anything to do with it; but, obliged to obey, he put his hand to it, which he had no sooner done than he saw a large snake slide out, which disappeared with the purse. on which, francis said to his companions: "brother, money is, as regards the servants of god, but as a venomous serpent, and even the devil himself." we may here add, that it is the same thing for those who are too fond of it, and who avariciously keep it, or make it serve for the gratification of their passions. a chapel, which has been built in that place, is a memorial of the teaching of the patriarch to the poor of jesus christ. his devotion induced him also to visit the grotto consecrated by the apparition of the archangel michael, on mount gargano. they wished, out of respect, to take him to the very spot where the blessed spirit was manifested, and where mass is offered up, a privilege which is not allowed to all. but through humility he stopped at the door, and, as he was urged to enter, he said: "i dare not go farther; this place is awful; it is the dwelling of angels, whom men should respect in all ways." the place where he stopped to pray is shown to this day. these sentiments of humility should abash those christians who crowd round our altars in unbecoming postures, and particularly those worldly women who, in immodest postures and in an air of vanity, approach contemptuously the sanctuary in which the sacred body of jesus reposes. francis placed some of his religious near mount gargano and in some other parts, after which he came to gubbio, where he cured a woman, the sinews of whose hands were contracted. near gubbio, a soldier called benvenuto, asked to be admitted into the order; he was admitted as a lay-brother, with directions to wait upon the lepers. profound humility, implicit obedience, an ardent charity, the love of poverty and of silence, assiduity in prayer, perfect patience in sickness, and a tender devotion to the blessed sacrament, rendered this soldier an excellent religious. god honored him with so many miracles during his lifetime and after his death, which happened in the year , that pope gregory ix had information taken on the subject, in , through the bishops of malfi, molfetta, and venosa, and permitted these three dioceses to allot to him an office, which is now said by the whole order of friars minor. there lived, between gubbio and massa, an old advocate of the roman court, called bartholomew baro, who had retired thither to avoid the tumults and dangers of the world, and lived in great reputation of sanctity. francis, delighted at what he had heard of him, wished to see him. they discoursed on spiritual things, and bartholomew, hearing that there was a third order, willingly entered it. the holy founder who saw that great prudence was associated with his consummate piety, placed confidence in him regarding the affairs of his order, and left some of his religious with him. st. antoninus relates, that bartholomew had in his hermitage a man possessed by the devil, who was incessantly talking, but who did not speak a word during the three days that francis was there. after his departure he recommenced talking, and bartholomew having asked him why, during the stay of francis, he had kept silence: "it was," he said, "because god had so tied his tongue that it was out of his power to speak a single word." "how is it, then," replied bartholomew: "is francis so great a man, that his presence has such an effect?" "truly," rejoined the demoniac, "his virtue is so great, that all the world will see in him most wonderful things. it is not long since our prince called us all together, and told us that god, who in all times had sent men for the conversion of sinners, has similar designs in regard to this man, and that jesus christ proposes to renew his passion in francis, in order to imprint it in the hearts of men from whence it is obliterated." as this was said two years before francis received the stigmata, it would seem that the prince of darkness had some knowledge of the favors which jesus christ intended to confer on francis. st. augustine says, that the son of god made himself known to the demons on earth, making certain signs to them of his presence; but that it was only as far as he thought proper; that he made use of it, when necessary to inspire them with terror; and that, at other times, he left them in doubt as to his divinity. according to this doctrine, it might be said that god, to confound the demons, had made known to their chief his intention to renew the passion of jesus christ in the person of francis, without informing him in what manner this was to happen, for it is certain that this spirit of darkness, neither by his natural lights, nor by conjectures, had the means of discovering a favor which solely depended on the divine will. at length, having labored for the salvation of souls with great fatigue, nearly the whole year, the holy patriarch returned to his dear home, st. mary of the angels, to attend more immediately to his own sanctification. he there received brother casar of spire, who had returned from germany, and the subject of whose mission we must now resume, having lost sight of it since the year . this zealous missionary left italy with twenty-seven companions, divided into small parties, and before the feast of st. michael, they arrived successfully at trent, where they remained fifteen days, during which the bishop provided liberally for all their wants. on the day of the festival, casar preached to the clergy, and barnabas to the people. an inhabitant of the town, named pellegrino, was so moved by barnabas's discourse, that he had all the brethren newly clothed, and shortly afterwards he sold all his property, gave it to the poor, and took the same habit himself. casar left some of the brethren at trent, exhorting them to the practice of patience and humility, and then set out with the remainder. on their way they attended with greater interest to spiritual than temporal wants, although they had commissioned some of their companions to provide what was necessary for them. the bishop of trent, whom they found at posen, detained them for some days, and gave them leave to preach in the whole of his diocese. from thence they went to brixen, where the bishop received them very charitably; but from thence they had much to suffer in the mountains, where they could procure nothing to eat, after long and fatiguing marches, and were reduced to feed upon wild fruits, and even then they had a scruple of tasting these on friday morning, because it was, by their rule, a fast, although they had slept in the open air, and had had scarcely anything to eat the preceding day. but god supported them, and they reached augsburg, where the bishop embraced them all, and gave them special marks of his benevolence. in , near the feast of st. gall, which is on the sixteenth of october, casar assembled the first chapter of the order which had been held in germany; there were about thirty of his brethren, whom he distributed in several provinces of this vast country. some were sent to wurtzburg, mentz, worms, spire, and cologne, where they exerted themselves with much success for the salvation of souls, and built convents. giordano was sent with two companions to saltzburg, and the archbishop of that city received them with great benevolence. three others went to ratisboa, where they founded an excellent establishment. the provincial followed them, animating them by word and example. while at wurtzburg, he gave the habit of the friars minor to a young man of good family, named hartmod, who had enjoyed a good education. he called him andrew, because the day of his reception was that of the holy apostle. andrew, having taken holy orders some time after, became a celebrated preacher, and was the first warden in saxony. rodinger was also admitted into the order, who was afterwards warden of the convent of halberstad, and director of st. elizabeth of hungary, before dr. conrad of marburg. in , casar, having received a great number of novices, some of whom were made priests, assembled a chapter at worms, and finding that the order was taking firm root in germany, he instituted as vice-provincial, thomas de celano, and returned into italy with simon de collazon, who had preferred the humble state of friar minor to the nobility of his birth. the reason of casar's return was the anxious desire he had to see once more his holy patriarch, and his companions in the valley of spoleto, with whom he was intimately united through virtue. he was a man greatly attached to contemplation, very zealous for holy poverty, and highly esteemed by his brethren, who, after their holy father, looked up to him above any other. the religious whom he had left in germany pursued their mission with great success. even in this year, or shortly after, they penetrated, with the friars preachers, into the kingdom of sweden, and into some other countries of the north, according to the testimony of john the great. archbishop of upsal, and legate of the holy see, who notices this circumstance in the history of his church. this prelate remarks that one of the first who entered the institute of the friars minor, was laurence octavius, an illustrious man, whose conversion made such a sensation, that it drew into the order many persons of high rank. the poor habit which he wore, and which he honored by his splendid virtues, and particularly by love of suffering, did not render it less venerable than his sciences. octavius could not avoid giving his consent, in the year or , to the election which was unanimously made of his person, by the clergy and people, for the archbishopric of upsal, which was confirmed by innocent iv. in this dignity, he continued to live the life of a true friar minor, and did so much for the salvation of his flock, as well as for the benefit of the whole kingdom, that, if heresy had not destroyed in sweden all sentiments of piety with the light of faith, his memory would still be honored there as one of their greatest as well as holiest persons. he died a saintly death, in the year , and chose to be buried among the friars minor, with whom he would have gladly spent his life. while the institute of st. francis thus flourished in germany and in the north, a treasure was discovered in italy, which had been up to this time overlooked. it was the great st. anthony of padua, who was leading a hidden life in the hermitage of st. paul near bologna. his superior sent him, with some others, to forli, in romagna, to take orders. some friars preachers were also present. being assembled together at the hour of conference, the superior of the place requested the friars preachers to give them an exhortation. as they excused themselves because they were not prepared, he turned to anthony, and without being aware of the depth of his learning, he ordered him to say whatever the holy spirit should suggest to him. anthony replied with great humility that he was ill fitted for such a task, and that he was much more qualified for cleaning the plates than for preaching. however, yielding to the superior's reiterated order, he began to discourse with simplicity and timidity; but god, proposing to place conspicuously the lamp which was hidden under the bushel, he continued his discourse with so much eloquence, and showed himself to possess so profoundly learned a doctrine, that the audience was most agreeably surprised, and admitted that they had never heard anything to equal it; and they did not know which most to admire, his learning or his humility. it was, indeed, requisite to be possessed of rare and extraordinary humility, to hide with so much care such sublime learning, and talents so varied; for anthony had earnestly requested the guardian of the convent in which he was, to employ him in cleaning the plates and dishes, and in sweeping the house. this man, who, according to the saying of the apostle, was "a vessel of honor, sanctified and profitable to the lord, prepared unto every good work," treated himself, and wished to be considered by his companions, as one of the vilest amongst men. he was deserving of the highest place, and took the very lowest. he was so deeply versed in the holy scriptures, that his memory served him as a book; and he penetrated so well into the most obscure passages that he was the admiration of the most profound theologians; but he was more anxious to be confounded with the unlearned, and to be unknown, than to let his learning be discovered, and to appear capable of instructing others. we may here notice a reflection of st. bernard on a somewhat similar case: "let this passage be remarked by those who undertake to teach what they have not learnt themselves; seeking for scholars, without having had masters, they are the blind leading the blind. but justice is done them; although it is admitted that they have some talent, it is soon found that they have nothing solid, and they are treated with contempt." the fortunate discovery that was thus made of the talents of anthony, soon reached the ears of francis, who ordered him to apply himself to the pulpit. he desired, however, that the preacher, in order to exercise his ministry with the greatest effect, should study theology at vercelli, under the abbot of st. andrew, who gave lessons with great reputation, and who is supposed to have been the celebrated doctor thomas, a canon regular of the abbey of st. victor of paris. he was sent to be the first abbot at the abbey of st. andrew of vercelli, which was founded about the year . anthony had as a fellow-student another friar minor, named adam de marisco, an englishman, who was afterwards a doctor of the university of oxford, the holiness of his life, his learning, and his writings rendered him famous throughout the whole realm of england. he was subsequently elected bishop of ely. the application which anthony gave to the study of theology did not prevent his preaching during all lent at milan, and at other times in some parts of the duchy. but his preaching was no hindrance to his studies, because the lights he had previously acquired, and those he received from above, together with his splendid talents, gave him an insight into the most sublime truths. his progress was so quick and so great, that his master often declared, that he learnt many things from his scholar. speaking of the book of the celestial hierarchy which he was explaining, he said that his scholar ran over the several orders of blessed spirits with so much precision, and a penetration so surprising, that it might have been thought that the whole heavenly host passed before him. this exalted wisdom, joined to his eminent virtues, induced his illustrious preceptor to give him the name of saint, and to apply our blessed lord's eulogy of st. john the baptist to him: "he was a burning and a shining light." anthony was requested by his fellow-students to communicate to them the learning in which he abounded, and to give lessons in the convent, but he would not take upon himself to exercise the functions of master, without having first consulted the holy founder of the order. he wrote to him on the subject, and received the following answer: "to my dear brother anthony, brother francis sends greeting in jesus christ. "i entirely approve of your teaching the brethren sacred theology; in such a manner, however, that the spirit of prayer be not extinguished in you or in them, according to the rule which we profess. adieu." this is a proof that francis was not hostile to study, but that he only wished it to be conducted in a religious manner, without prejudice to piety. anthony, having obtained leave, taught first at montpellier, and then at bologna, where studies were again set on foot, to which disobedience had put a stop, as has been said; then he taught at padua, at toulouse, and in other places where he was stationed: always joining to this holy exercise, that of preaching with wonderful success. at the time when he began taking lessons from the abbot of vercelli, the most celebrated doctor of the university of paris took the habit of the friars minor. this was alexander d'hales or d'hels, or hales, thus named from the place of his birth in the county of gloucester, where, from the year , richard, earl of cornwall, had founded a convent of the order of citeaux. having gone through his course of humanities in england, he came to paris, where he studied philosophy and theology, took a doctor's degree, taught, and was universally admired. st. antoninus believes that what led to his vocation was this: having made a vow to grant, if he possibly could, whatever should be asked of him for the love of the blessed virgin, for whom he had a singular devotion, a person who was questing for the friars minor, came and said to him: "it is now long enough that you have been laboring for the world, and you have acquired celebrity in it. i entreat you, for the love of god, and of the blessed virgin, to enter into our order, which you will honor, and you will sanctify yourself." the doctor was surprised at this request, but god touched his heart, and he replied to the brother: "i shall follow you very soon; and shall do as you wish," and shortly after, he took the habit of a friar minor. others, however, are of opinion, that he was induced to quit the world by the example of his fellow-countryman, john of st. gilles, an illustrious doctor, who, preaching one day to the clergy, with great energy, on voluntary poverty, in the convent of the friars preachers, descended from the pulpit in the middle of his sermon, and in order to give force to his words by his example, he took the habit of st. dominic, and returned to the pulpit to finish his discourse. however this may be, the holy life and happy death of alexander hales in the order of st. francis, bore testimony to his having been called by god. it is said that, at first, the practices were difficult to him, and that some interior suffering made him think of leaving the order, but that, in this agitation, he saw in spirit francis bearing a heavy wooden cross, and endeavoring to carry it up a very steep hill; that he offered to assist him, but that the holy patriarch spurned his aid indignantly, saying: "begone, you feeble man; you have not the courage to bear your own light cross, and you would attempt to bear this heavy one!" this vision having enlightened the doctor who was a novice, he was delivered entirely from the temptation under which he labored. he continued to teach with the same repute; and the faculty of theology, to do honor to his merits, gave him the privilege of presenting one of his brethren and disciples for a doctor's degree; which he did the first time by an interior revelation, in favor of brother john de la rochelle, who afterwards became very celebrated. alexander had many other disciples distinguished both for their learning and their piety, but there are none who have done more honor to his instructions than st. bonaventure, and, according to the opinion of many authors, st. thomas aquinas. among his writings, which are very numerous, and on all sorts of subjects, his summa is much esteemed, in which, by order of pope innocent iv, he arranged methodically the theological subjects. this is the first summa which was compiled, and it has served as a model for all others. pope alexander iv spoke in the highest terms, both of the author and of his work. gerson, chancellor of the university of paris, in speaking of alexander's doctrine, expresses himself as follows: "it is not to be told how many excellent things it contains. i declare to have read in a treatise, that some one having asked st. thomas what was the best mode of studying theology, he replied, 'to study the works of a single theologian;' and being asked what theologian it was desirable to fix on, he named alexander hales. thus," continues gerson, "the writings of st. thomas, and principally the seconda seconda, show how familiar the works and doctrine of alexander were to him." so then learned men entered the order of friars minor, as st. francis had foretold; and this is the reason why he recommended that prayer should be joined to study, lest learning should obliterate piety. the indulgence granted to st. mary of the angels, or the portiuncula, two years previous to this time, had not yet had the day fixed on which the faithful could gain it. francis waited till jesus christ, who first conceded so precious a boon, should himself mark the day, nor was he disappointed. it occurred as follows: one night, when he was praying in his cell, at st. mary of the angels, in the beginning of the year , the tempter suggested to him not to watch and pray so much, but rather to adopt other modes of penance, because, from his age, more sleep and rest was absolutely necessary for him, and these watchings would be his death. being aware of the malice of his infernal enemy, he retired to the woods, and threw himself down into a bush of briars and thorns, till he was covered with blood. "for," said he to himself, "it is much better that i should suffer these pains with jesus christ, than that i should follow the advice of an enemy who flatters me." a brilliant light which surrounded him, disclosed to him a great number of white and red roses, although it was the month of january, and the winter was very severe. this was an effect of the power of god, who had changed the briars into rose-trees, which have ever since been evergreen and without thorns. angels, who appeared in great numbers, said to him: "francis, hasten to return to the church, jesus christ is there, together with his blessed mother." at the same time, he perceived himself miraculously clothed with a new habit of pure white; he gathered twelve roses of each color, and went to the church. after a profound adoration he addressed the following prayer to jesus christ, under the protection of the most blessed virgin: "most holy father, lord of heaven and earth, saviour of man, deign, through thy great mercy, to fix the day of the indulgence which thou hast been pleased to grant to this sacred place." our lord answered him, that it was his desire that it should be from the evening of the vigil of the day when st. peter the apostle was delivered from his chains, to the evening of the following day. francis, again asking in what manner this should be publicly made known, and whether his own assertion would be given credit to, he was directed to present himself before the vicar of jesus christ, to take with him some white and red roses as testimonials of the truth of the fact, also a number of his own brethren, who would testify to what they had heard; for, from the cells which were near the church, they had, indeed, heard all that had been said. then the angels sang the hymn "te deum laudamus." francis took three roses of each color in honor of the most blessed trinity, and the vision disappeared. francis, accompanied by brothers bernard de quintavalle, peter of catania, and angelus of rieti, set out for rome, where he related to the pope all that had happened at st. mary of the angels, in proof whereof, he presented to him the roses he had brought, and his companions testified to what they had heard. the pope, astonished to see such beautiful and sweet-smelling roses in the depth of winter, said: "as to myself, i believe the truth of what you tell me, but it is a matter which must be submitted to the cardinals for their opinions." in the meantime, he directed his attendants to see that they should not want for anything. the next day, they came before the consistory, where francis, by the pope's desire, said, in presence of the cardinals: "it is the will of god that whoever shall, with a contrite and humble heart, after having confessed his sins, and received absolution by a priest, enter the church of st. mary of the angels, in the diocese of assisi, between the first vespers of the first day of august and the vespers of the second day, shall obtain an entire remission of all the sins he may have committed from his baptism until that moment." the sovereign pontiff, seeing that the words of francis were not thought to have any deceit in them, having conferred with the cardinals thereon for some time, confirmed the indulgence. and he subsequently ordered the bishops of assisi, perugia, todi, spoleto, foligno, nocera, and gubbio, to meet at the church of st. mary of the angels, on the first of august of that year, and there solemnly to publish this indulgence. all these prelates met on the day specified, and having mounted a large platform, which had been prepared outside of the church, they made francis mount there also, to explain to the assembly, which was very numerous and gathered from all parts of the country, the cause of their meeting. he spoke with so much fervor that it seemed to be rather an angel who addressed the meeting than a man, and he ended his discourse by announcing the plenary and perpetual indulgence which god and the sovereign pontiff granted to this church every year on that day. the bishops were not satisfied with his publishing it to be in perpetuity. "brother francis," they said, "although the pope desires us to do on this occasion whatever you wish, it is not, however, his intention that we should do things which are not suitable; therefore you must give notice that the indulgence is only to last for ten years." the bishop of assisi was the first to restrict it to this time, but he could not help saying, as st. francis had, "in perpetuity." the other bishops endeavored successively to announce this restriction, but god permitted that, without intending it, they should all say, "in perpetuity." by this, they were made sensible of the will of god, and willingly proclaimed the indulgence to be perpetual. many of those who were at the sermon preached by francis, have left testimony in writing to the effect, that he had in his hand a small scroll on which was written these words: "i wish you all to go to paradise. i announce to you a plenary indulgence which i have obtained from the goodness of our heavenly father, and from the mouth of the sovereign pontiff. all you who are assembled here to-day, and with a contrite and humble heart have confessed with sincerity, and have received absolution from a priest, will have remission of all your sins; and in like manner, those who come every year with similar dispositions, will obtain the same." such is the way in which the famous indulgence of st. mary of the angels, or of portiuncula, was published on the second day of august; an indulgence which the sovereign pontiffs have since extended to all the churches of the order of st. francis. the seven prelates consecrated the church of st. mary of the angels, and performed a similar ceremony for the church of st. damian, at the request of francis and clare. the remembrance of this is commemorated yearly at assisi, on the ninth of august. the benevolent feeling which honorius iii expressed to the holy patriarch, when he was at rome, for the indulgence of the portiuncula, induced him to wish that this pontiff would authorize solemnly the rule of the order, which innocent iii had only verbally approved. he had in the night the following revelation, which is thus recorded by st. bonaventure: it seemed to him that he had taken up from the ground some very small crumbs of bread, in order to distribute them to the half-starved brethren who surrounded him, and how, fearful lest such small crumbs should fall out of his hands, a heavenly voice said to him: "francis, collect all these crumbs and make a host of them, and give of it to such as wish to eat of it." he did so, and all those who did not partake of it devoutly, or treated it contemptuously, after having received it, seemed to be infected with leprosy. in the morning, he related all this to his companions, and was distressed at not comprehending the mystery. the following day, while he was at prayer, a voice from heaven said to him: "francis, the crumbs of last night are the words of the gospel, the host is the rule, and the leprosy is iniquity." the term of host, to designate the rule, is worthy of particular consideration. its import is that, as bread without leaven, which is called the host, is made of the finest flour, so the rule is composed of what is most perfect in the gospel; and as this bread, by the words of consecration, is changed into the body of jesus christ, the true host immolated on the altar, so those who make profession of the rule, must be transformed into hosts, or victims, and immolate themselves to god. it is thus that st. paul warns christians, "to become as a new paste without leaven," and to pass the whole time of their lives as a continual festival, "presenting their bodies a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing unto god." st. peter also says to them, that they are a "spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god by jesus christ." the oracle of heaven communicated to francis that the rule which he sought to have approved, and which was composed of sentences from the gospel, required abridgment, and putting into order with greater precision. in order to effect this, he was inspired, after the publication of the indulgence, to go to mount columbo, near rieti, where he retired into an opening in the rock, with brothers leo and bonzio, fasting on bread and water; and this fast, according to the statement of marianus, lasted forty days. there he wrote the rule, according to the dictation of the holy spirit manifested to him, in prayer. on his return to st. mary of the angels, he put it into the hands of his vicar, brother elias, to read it, and keep it. elias thought it too severe, and some days afterwards, in order to suppress it, he feigned to have lost it by negligence. the holy men returned to the same place, and wrote it out a second time, as if god had dictated it to him with his own mouth. the vicar-general communicated to some of the provincial ministers what had happened, and told them that the founder was desirous of imposing upon them a stricter mode of life than that to which they had hitherto adhered. they concerted together what they should do to avert this, and it was agreed that elias, as vicar-general, should go and represent to him the inconvenience of such increased austerity, and the objections of his brethren. elias, who was aware of the firmness of francis in these matters, and had been severely rebuked by him on other occasions, acknowledged that he did not dare execute this commission alone, but he offered to accompany them for the common cause, and they consented to this arrangement. while they were drawing near to the mountain, francis had a revelation of what was passing. when they had reached the top, he left the opening of the rock quickly, and demanded of elias what he and all these ministers who were with him wanted. elias, with downcast eyes, and trembling, said, in a low tone of voice: "these ministers, having learnt that you were about to give them a new rule above the strength of man to endure, have engaged me to come here, in my capacity of vicar-general, to entreat you to modify it, because they will not receive it, if it is too austere." at these words, the saint, in great emotion and shuddering, raised his eyes to heaven and exclaimed: "lord, did i not say that these people would not believe me? as to myself, i will keep this rule to the day of my death, with those of my companions who love poverty; but i shall not have it in my power to compel those who do not choose it, and who make so much resistance." jesus christ appeared in a luminous cloud above francis, and said, so that all heard him: "little man, why are you discontented, as if this is your work?--it is i who have dictated the rule; no part of it is yours. i insist on its being literally observed to the very letter--to the very letter, without gloss or comment. i know what frail man can endure, and what support i can and will give him. let those who will not keep the rule leave the order; i will raise up others in their place; and if it be requisite, i will bring them forth from these stones." then francis, from the top of the rock on which he had knelt down, addressed these words to the vicar-general and to the others, who were greatly alarmed: "you now know that your conspiracy has been solely an opposition to the will of god, and that instead of taking into consideration what he can do for us, you have only consulted the feeble light of your human prudence. have you heard, have you, yourself, heard the voice which came forth from the cloud, and which spoke so audibly? if it did not resound in your ears, i will take steps to cause you to hear it once more." upon this, elias and his companions, astounded and beside themselves, retired without saying a single word. the holy patriarch having returned to join his faithful children in the small fissure of the rock, in which they lay prostrate at the voice of the lord, said to them: "rise up now, and fear nothing, but as true soldiers of jesus christ put on the armor of god, in order to be on your guard against the snares which the devil will not fail to throw in the way of your following him." he left the mountain and went to the nearest convent to show the rule to his brethren, intending to communicate it afterwards to the others, in order to know what each one thought of it. his countenance, animated and shining, was a manifestation that god himself had dictated to him the rule of life which he proposed to them. it was a striking representation of moses coming down from mount sinai, his face shining brightly. the resemblance cannot be too much admired in its several relations. moses, after a fast of forty days, received, on a mountain, the law which god gave him. jesus christ having fasted forty days, was on a mountain when he taught that doctrine which embraces, as st. augustine observes, all the perfection of the christian life. and it was on a mountain that it was his pleasure to give his servant francis, who fasted rigorously, a rule in which the perfection of the evangelical life is contained. some having read the rule, said to francis, that it was necessary that his order should have something in common, as the other religious orders had; seeing that the number of the brethren was already very great, and that, according to all appearance, the order would be so extended; that it would not be possible to exist in so restricted a state of poverty. the saint returned to the place he had left, and having had recourse to prayer, he consulted jesus christ, the true legislator, who gave the following reply: "it is i who am their portion and their inheritance, i do not choose that they should be encumbered with the things of this world. provided they adhere strictly to the rule, and that they place their confidence in me, i will take care of them; i will not suffer them to stand in need of anything necessary to life; the more their numbers increase, the more will i manifest my providence to them." we must here render to that adorable and loving providence the justice due to it. it has never been wanting to the order of st. francis, and they have never had greater proofs of his care than when they have chosen to live most poorly. we see verified to the letter, in these poor evangelical brethren, the imitators of jesus christ crucified, what is said in the twenty-first psalm, in which the son of god has clearly foretold his passion: "the poor shall eat and shall be filled, and they shall praise the lord that seek him, their hearts shall live forever and ever." were he now to ask the religious of st. francis, as he asked the apostles: "when i sent you without purse, or scrip, and shoes, did you want for anything?" there is not one who would not answer as they did: "no, we have not wanted for anything." for a poor evangelical brother is bound to consider himself as not wanting anything while he lives, and to look upon having nothing but what is necessary as the treasure of his state of life. a religious order which, without any revenue, maintains many thousand men, was a subject of admiration for an infidel prince, and the founder was considered by him as a very great man. he was not aware of the cause of this wonderful effect, but religion teaches us that it is god himself who provides for the wants of his servants, by the charity with which he inspires the faithful. francis communicated to the ministers what our lord had said to him. they submitted to everything, and returned with him to st. mary of the angels, where the rule was approved by the brethren who were there, and was then sent into the provinces to be examined before it was submitted for confirmation. speaking of the rule, he said to his children: "i have not put anything into it of my own; i caused it all to be written as god revealed it to me;" and he adduced this motive to incite them the better to keep it. he confirmed the revelation in his will, in the following terms: "when the lord confided to me the guidance of the brethren, no one communicated to me how i was to behave towards them, but the almighty himself revealed to me that i ought to live according to the form prescribed by the gospel; i caused it to be written out in few and simple words," etc. this is the eulogium he passed on it: "my brethren and my dear children, a very great favor was done to us in giving us this rule; for it is the book of life, the hope of salvation, the pledge of glory, the marrow of the gospel, the way of the cross, a state of perfection, the key of paradise, and the bond of our eternal alliance. none of you is ignorant how greatly advantageous to us holy religion is. as the enemy who fights against us is extremely clever in inventing and executing everything which is malicious, and strews in our way all sorts of snares to effect our perdition, there are many whose salvation he would have brought into great peril, if religion had not been their shield. study, therefore, your rule, all of you, not only for alleviating your pains, but in order that it may remind you of the oath you have taken to keep it. it is necessary that you should employ yourselves in meditating on it, that it may sink into your hearts, and be always before your eyes, so that you may observe it with exactness, and hold it fast at your deaths." st. bridget being in prayer at jerusalem; where she was interceding for a friar minor who had some conscientious scruples on the subject of the rule, our saviour caused her to hear the following words: "the rule of st. francis was not the composition of the human mind; it is i who made it; it does not contain a single word which was not inspired by my spirit; and thus francis gave it to the others." pope nicholas iii says, that it bears on the face of it, the evidence of the trinity; that it is descended from the father of light, that it was taught to the apostles by the example, and by the doctrine of his son, and that the holy ghost inspired it to the blessed francis and to those who had followed him. he also declares, as gregory ix had done before, that it is established on the word of the gospel, authorized by the life of jesus christ, and supported by the actions and words of the apostles, who founded the church militant. it consists, according to the remark of st. bonaventure, in observing the holy gospel of our lord jesus christ, because all its substance is taken from the pure source of the gospel. it is, therefore, no new rule; it is only a renewed rule; literally the same as what the son of god laid down for the apostles, when he sent them forth to preach; and that ought always give great spiritual consolation to those who keep it. this holy doctor considers the impressions of the wounds of jesus christ, which francis received from the hand of the living god, some time after the revelation of the rule, as a bull of jesus christ, by which that high pontiff confirmed it; and pope nicholas iii was of the same opinion, in his decrial. finally, the rule of the friars minor, given by st. francis, is wholly evangelical, and wholly apostolical; there never was one which was so universally and so promptly followed. men illustrious by their birth, by their knowledge, by their talents, by their virtue, embraced it and have followed it, during a number of centuries, in all parts of the christian world; it has given to the church a new family, in numbers most extensive, whose fecundity does not become exhausted, and it has produced a great galaxy of saints. the children of the patriarch, having most willingly received it, he left them in the month of october, in order to solicit the approval of the sovereign pontiff. when at rome, he was invited to dine with cardinal ugolino, the protector of the order, who had a sincere affection for him; but he did not come to the invitation, until he had begged some pieces of bread, as he was accustomed to do, when he was to dine with persons of rank. being at table, he drew this bread from his sleeve and began to eat of it, and he gave some to the other guests, who partook of it from devotion. after dinner, the cardinal embraced him, and said, smiling: "my good man, why, as you were to dine with me, did you put the affront on me, to go and beg bread first and bring it to my table?" "my lord," replied francis, "far from doing anything to affront you, i did you honor, in honoring, at your board, a much greater lord than you are, to whom poverty is very agreeable, especially that which goes as far as voluntary mendicancy, for the love of jesus christ. i have resolved not to give up in favor of false and passing riches, this virtue which is of royal dignity, since our lord jesus christ became poor for us, in order that, by his poverty, we might become rich and heirs to the kingdom of heaven." an admirable reply, which is quite in unison with what was said by st. gregory nazianzen. "if i am reproached for my poverty, i am sure that it is my treasure;" and with these words of st. ambrose, on the birth of christ: "his poverty is my patrimony; he chose to want for everything, in order that all others might be in abundance." the cardinal presented francis to the pope, that he might solicit the confirmation of his rule. the holy father read it, and, finding it too severe, he desired some changes might be made in it; but, the man of god protesting by everything that was most sacred, that he had not put a single word into it, and that jesus christ had dictated it, as it there stood, the pontiff, after discussing it with the cardinals, confirmed it. his bull commences thus: "honorius, bishop, the servant of the servants of god. to our dearly beloved sons, brother francis, and other brethren of the order of friars minor, health and apostolical benediction. the apostolic see is accustomed to assent to pious intentions and to favor the laudable wishes of those who solicit her favors. for which reason, our dear children in jesus christ, we confirm by apostolical authority, and we strengthen by this present writing, the rule of your order, which was approved by pope innocent, of glorious memory, our predecessor, expressed in these terms, etc." after having gone through it all, he concludes as follows: "let no person, therefore, have the temerity to violate the contents of our present confirmation, or to contravene it. should any one dare to do so, let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty god, and that of his blessed apostles, st. peter and st. paul. given in the lateran palace, the twenty-ninth day of november, , the eighth of our pontificate." the original of this bull, with its leaden seal, is preserved as assisi, in the convent of st. francis, where wading saw it, in , with a copy of the rule written by st. francis' own hand. while francis was still at rome, he proposed to himself to celebrate the festival of the nativity of our lord jesus christ at grecio, with all the solemnity possible, in order to awaken the devotion of all in that vicinity. he wrote a letter on the subject to his friend, john velita, begging him to prepare all things; and in order that there should be no room for censuring what he was about to do, he spoke to the pope about it, who approved highly of this pious ceremony, and granted indulgences to those who should assist at it. st. bonaventure informs us that, before his departure from rome, he went to pay his respects to cardinal leo brancaleone, titular of santa croce, with whom his friendship began in , when he first came to have his rule approved. this cardinal invited him to stay some days in his palace, because the severity of the weather and the floods might impede his journey; it was the month of december. he retained, to remain with him, with francis' leave, brother angelo tancredi, whose miraculous conversion we have related; at that time, there were but few of the cardinals who did not wish to have some of the friars minor in their company; such was the veneration they had for their virtue at the roman court. francis, however, found excuses for not spending more than two or three days in the palace of brancaleone, saying that it was not fitting for the poor to dwell in the palaces of princes. the cardinal told him that he would receive him as a pauper, and give him a bed, not in his palace, but in an adjacent tower near the city walls quite out of the way of any noise, where he might repose from his fatigue for some time. tancredi entreated him not to refuse this satisfaction to a prince of the church, who was a person of great piety, and a generous benefactor to the order; therefore, out of respect, and from gratitude, he consented to stay, and with his companion took up his abode in the tower. the following night, when he was about to take some repose, the devils came and beat him so long, and so violently, that they left him half- dead. he called his companion, and told him what had happened, and he added: "brother, i believe that the devils, who can do nothing without the leave of the almighty, have ill-used me to this degree, because of my having remained with great people, here; if so, it augurs no good. my brethren who dwell in very poor houses, knowing that i am the guest of cardinals, might suspect that i enter willingly into the concerns of the world, that i glory in honors, and that i am living daintily. i therefore think that a man who is to be an example to others, should leave the court, and dwell humbly with the humble, in places adapted to the profession of humility, in order that he may inspire those with fortitude, who suffer the inconveniences of a life of poverty, by suffering with them." in the morning, he took leave of the cardinal, and set out for grecio. it is necessary here to remark that st. francis, who permitted some of his brethren to remain with the cardinals, did not think that he himself, who was the superior, ought to spend a single night in their palaces, lest others should be disedified thereby, and that it was his duty to give good example to all. this shows how much persons in power should strive not to do anything calculated to give bad examples, and to abstain from certain things which, though irreprehensible in themselves, and which would not be noticed in a lowly individual, might be a cause of scandal in one of high station, who ought to be a model of virtue. on this principle, st. paul said to the christians: "all things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. i do all for your edification." he recommended his disciples, timothy and titus, whom he had ordained bishops, to be "an example to the faithful, in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity, in the practice of good works." st. gregory, st. bernard, and all the holy fathers have always required of prelates, as a primary qualification, that they should greatly edify; which is the more necessary in the superiors of religious communities, as their example is under more immediate observation. the bad health of francis, the beating which he had received from the devils, and a constant fall of rain, compelled him to ride on an ass. during his journey he dismounted to say the divine office, standing; he remained on the same spot without paying attention to the rain, and did not mount till he had quite finished. having reached grecio, he found all things prepared for the celebration of the festival by his friend velita. they had prepared a crib in the wood, in which was represented the nativity of our saviour; they had placed straw there, and, during christmas-night, also took there an ox and an ass. many friars minor had arrived at the wood from the neighboring convents, and the people of the environs came in crowds to the ceremony. the wood was lit up by numerous torches, and resounded melodiously from the sound of a thousand voices which sang the praises of god with untiring zeal. francis, full of devotion, and with his eyes bathed in tears of holy joy, knelt before the manger, above which an altar had been placed, where mass was celebrated at midnight; he acted as deacon, and after having sung the gospel, he preached on the birth of the newborn king, became poor. velita, who had prepared the ceremonial, assured them that he had seen a most beautiful child in the manger, who was asleep, and whom francis tenderly embraced in order to awaken it. there is so much the more reason for giving credit to this marvel, says st. bonaventure, since he who relates it, having been an eye-witness thereof, was a very holy man, and since it was confirmed by many miracles; for the straw on which the child appeared to be sleeping, had the virtue of curing various maladies amongst cattle; and, what is still more wonderful, those who came to visit the spot, however tepid and indevout they may have been, were inflamed with the love of god. after the death of the saint, a chapel was erected on the spot, and the altar was placed at the manger, in order that the flesh of the man-cod immolated on the cross, might be eaten on the spot on which he had chosen to appear as a sleeping infant. after the ceremony, francis retired to the convent of grecio, where some of the provincial ministers had collected, who had come thither to communicate to him the affairs of their respective provinces. the refectory had been set out in a better style than usual, with napkins and glasses, not only on account of the solemnity of the day, but to show respect to the guests. francis was displeased at this, and, during dinner, he went to the door of the convent, and took the hat and staff of a pilgrim who was soliciting alms, and then, in this garb, came to the refectory to beg as a poor pilgrim. the superior, who knew him by his voice, said to him, smiling: "brother pilgrim, there are here very many religious, who stand in great need of what has been bestowed upon them out of charity; however, come in, and they will give you what they can." francis came in and sat himself on the ground, where he ate very contentedly some scraps of bread and other things which they gave him on a platter, without choosing to have anything else. francis remained some time at grecio, where, one night, when he intended to lay himself down to sleep, he felt a severe headache, and a shivering over his whole body, which quite impeded his resting. thinking that this might be caused by a feather pillow which his friend velita had compelled him to accept, in consequence of his infirmities, he called his companion, who was near his cell, and said: "take away this pillow: i believe the devil is in it." his companion, who took it away, found it extremely heavy, and he had hardly left the cell, when he found himself motionless and dumb. the father, not doubting of the malignity of the devil, ordered the brother, under obedience, to come back directly; the wicked spirit having immediately left him, he came back and related the state in which he had found himself. the saint, confirmed by this in the idea with which he had been impressed, that what he had suffered had been brought on by his enemy, said:--"it is true that yesterday, when reciting compline, i perceived that the devil was approaching, and i prepared to resist him. he is full of malice and artfulness; as he could not sully a soul which god protects by his grace, he endeavored to injure the body, and to prevent the necessary aid being afforded to it; desiring to induce it to commit some fault, at least of impatience, and prevent its having recourse to prayer." the holy man was delivered from his sufferings, and got the rest he could not obtain, when his head was laid upon a feather pillow. to what a height of perfection did not god propose to raise this his faithful servant? he did not even allow him to have a small relief from his sufferings. he is a holy god, jealous of the sanctity of souls, who desires to have them purified by all sorts of sacrifices; but, then, his rewards are great. whilst francis was at grecio and in its environs, peter of catania, his first vicar-general, died in the convent of st. mary of the angels, on the d day of march, . as soon as he was in the tomb, god bore witness to his merit by many miracles. the people crowded to his grave, and left valuable offerings, which greatly disturbed the quiet of the religious, and caused them much uneasiness on account of their strict poverty. francis, having been informed of it, went to the tomb, and, moved by holy zeal, he addressed the dead man in a commanding tone, with which god alone could have inspired him: "brother peter, whilst you were living, you always obeyed me punctually: i command you to obey me similarly now. those who come to your grave are very troublesome to us. our poverty is offended, and our quiet infringed on, so that our discipline becomes relaxed; thus, i command you, by your vow of obedience, to refrain from performing any more miracles." his order was obeyed. from that moment no more miracles were performed at the tomb of brother peter. an ancient manuscript chronicle which is preserved in the vatican, mentions that francis, having directed the body of brother peter to be removed sometime afterwards, it was found that it was turned and kneeling, the head bowed down, and in the posture of one who obeys a command given him. to mark the value of obedience and the respect due to it, god was pleased to permit a dead person to obey the orders of a superior, as if he had been living. a similar prohibition from performing miracles after death, is recorded in the life of st. bernard. gosvin, abbot of citeaux, who was at his funeral with many other abbots of his order, seeing the commotion caused by the numerous miracles which were worked there, and fearing this would become prejudicial to regular discipline, approached respectfully to the coffin, and forbade the saint from performing any more miracles, in virtue of his obedience. and, in fact, from that time, there were no more performed at that shrine publicly, although god performed others privately by his invocation. the author adds, that st. benedict requires in his rule, an obedience without reserve, according to the example of jesus christ, who was obedient unto death, and that the soul of st. bernard rendered itself obedient even after death to a mortal man. clare, and her daughters of the monastery of st. damian, now asked francis to give them a written rule, and a form of life similar to that of the friars minor, in order that, in his absence and after his death, they and those who should succeed them, might live up to it. these religious of st. damian, did not wish to receive the rule of st. benedict, nor the constitutions prepared by cardinal ugolino, which the other monasteries, established on the plan of st. damian, had willingly accepted, and which were of great severity: these nuns desired to have a rule which should be of even greater rigor. the holy patriarch consulted the same cardinal on this subject, he being the protector of both orders; and they jointly composed a rule in twelve chapters, which was similar in all respects to that of the friars minor, with modifications and usages proper for females. if anything made francis hesitate, the cardinal gave his opinion either to modify certain parts, or to take precautions on others. he also used some articles from the constitutions which had before been drawn up. while he was writing, he could not help shedding tears, in reflecting that young females were willing to practise austerities of such a nature. st. clare says in her will, addressing herself to the sisters: "our blessed father, st. francis, has written for us a form of life, principally that we may ever persevere in the practice of holy poverty, to which he has exhorted us, not only by his word and example, but by many writings which he has left us. pope innocent iv expressly declares in the bull which he issued at the earnest entreaty of st. clare, three days before her death, that the rule which he confirms was given them by st. francis. all is his, except some very trifling things, in no way essential, which seem to have been added to it by cardinal ugolino, by st. clare, and by the pope. "it was in the year, , that the marvellous apparition recorded by wading was seen, which is noted as follows in the legend of st. bonaventure: "although francis could not attend the provincial chapters, the order which he had laid down for these assemblies, the fervent prayers which he put up for their success, and the influence of the blessing which he gave them, were as if he were present at them. sometimes even, god, by his almighty power, caused him to appear among them in a sensible manner, as it happened at the chapter at arles. while that excellent preacher anthony was discoursing to the brethren on the passion of the son of god, and on the inscription on his cross, 'jesus of nazareth, king of the jews,' one of the religious, named monald, a man of exemplary virtue, moved by the spirit of god to look towards the door of the chapterhouse, saw the blessed francis, raised into the air with his arms extended as a cross, giving his blessing to the assembly. they then became filled with great spiritual consolation, which was an interior testimonial assuring them of the presence of their father, and confirming what monald had seen. this became more certain, afterwards, by the avowal which francis made respecting it." "we should have no difficulty in believing this," continues st. bonaventure, "for god, by his almighty power, rendered the holy bishop st. ambrose, during a mysterious sleep, present at the funeral obsequies of st. martin; in a similar manner it was his pleasure that the truths announced by his preacher anthony, on the subject of the cross of jesus christ, should receive greater weight by the presence of his servant francis, who carried the cross with such exemplary courage, and preached it with such zeal." having given a rule to the sisters of st. damian, and transacted all that related to the three orders, francis recommended strongly to brother elias, to attend carefully, and to see that everything was carried into effect, and then thought it necessary to take some time to attend to his own interior. for it was his custom to go from one good work to another, in which he imitated, st. bonaventure says, the angels whom jacob saw in his dream, going up and down the mysterious ladder, the feet of which rested on the earth, but its summit reached the heavens. this angelic man so employed the time which was given him, in which to amass treasures of merit, that he was constantly occupied either in descending to his neighbor by the laborious ministries of charity, or in elevating himself to god in the quiet exercise of contemplation. when circumstances had compelled him to give more time to the service of souls, he afterwards retired to some lonely and noiseless place, to remove from himself, by giving his thoughts solely to god, all the filth which might have attached itself to him in his intercourse with men. our lord often gave his apostles examples of retreats, and they cannot be too often recommended to those who labor for the salvation of their neighbors. francis, therefore, went with some of his brethren to meditate in the convent of celles, near cortona. he met on the road a lady of good family, who was very pious and in great affliction, having a husband who used her cruelly, and prevented her from serving god. she told him that she was come to pray to god for the conversion of her husband, and he made her this answer: "go in peace; and rest assured that your husband will soon afford you consolation; only tell him from god and from me, that now is the time of mercy, and that afterwards will be the time of justice." the lady received the father's blessing, and said what she had just learned to her husband. the holy ghost descended at the same moment on this man, and he became so changed, that he said to his wife in a mild tone of voice, "madam, let us serve god and work out our salvation." he passed thus many years with her in continence, with which she had inspired him, and they died most holily on the same day. we saw in the first two tertiaries, a wife sanctified by her husband. this is precisely what st. paul says: the one may contribute to the sanctification of the other. in fact, st. chrysostom thinks that a virtuous woman who is mild and prudent, is more likely to bring back a profligate husband to the service of god, than any other person; and that the solid piety of a husband, with good manners and discreet firmness, may soften the asperity of an ill-tempered woman, or at least render her less fractious. all that francis did at celles, was to give himself up to contemplation; and, in order that the place itself should be favorable to meditation, he resolved, after having been there a short time, to retire to the desert of mount alvernia; it was the holy ghost who inspired him with the desire to go thither, where he was to receive the glorious privilege of the stigmata. as he passed through the country of arezzo, his great infirmities compelled him to ask for an ass to continue his journey. there was not one in the village, but a person offered him a horse, which he was under the necessity of accepting: it was the only time that he had been on horseback since his conversion; for, whenever he had been forced to ride, he took the most despicable animal, in order to set an example to his brethren. in the village to which the horse was sent back, there was a woman who, for several days, was suffering cruelly from labor-pains, without being able to be delivered, so that no human hope remained of saving her life. the people of the place, seeing the horse brought back which had carried the saint, took the bridle and placed it on the woman's bed, in full confidence that he who had had the use of it, would come to her aid; and, in fact, she was immediately, most fortunately, delivered. this fact is one of those related by st. bonaventure. on mount alvernia francis reaped extraordinary consolations in meditation; he was filled with ardent desires of heaven, and, at the same time, he felt that the celestial gifts were communicated to him in greater abundance. these interior feelings which threw his soul into ecstasies, raised his body into the air to greater or less height, in proportion to their degree, as if an extreme disgust for every thing that was connected with the earth, gave him a stimulus to raise himself to his celestial home. brother leo, his secretary and his confessor, attests to have seen him raised sometimes to the height of a man, so that one could touch his feet, sometimes, above the tallest beech-trees, and sometimes so high, that he was elevated out of sight. when he was not raised higher than the height of a man, leo kissed his feet and watered them with his tears, with tender devotion, saying the following prayer: "my god, be merciful to me, a sinner such as i am, by the merits of this holy man, and deign to communicate to me some small portion of thy grace." when he lost sight of him, he prostrated himself and prayed, on the spot on which he had seen him elevate himself. st. thomas and many others believed that st. paul in his rapture may have been elevated in body and soul into the third heaven, that is, into the empyrean, into paradise, into the place where the angels and the blessed are; and we must not call this in question, since the apostle himself says, that he does not know whether he was raised up in the body or out of the body. st. theresa, whose works are published by authority, says that she had sometimes raptures in which she was raised from the ground by a supernatural power, whatever resistance she might make; that others saw her in this state, and she saw herself in it. we may therefore believe that god raised the body of his servant francis, while his soul was in raptures by interior operations; more particularly, as the fact is attested by so trustworthy a witness as leo, who certifies having seen it with his own eyes. "god," says st. theresa, "grants extraordinary favors to a soul, to detach it entirely from everything that is earthly, by the body itself, so that life becomes burthensome to it, and that it suffers a sort of torment brought on by a violent desire of possessing god, which is a martyrdom both agreeable, and, at the same time, painful; but we must be under the conviction, that with ordinary grace, which god increases in proportion to faithfulness, we may attain to an entire disengagement from worldly affairs, and to that longing for heaven which, as christians, we are obliged to feel." one day, when francis was restored from one of the ecstasies which had raised him from the ground, jesus christ appeared seated at a low stone table, where the saint was in the habit of taking his meals, and speaking to him with the familiarity of a friend, as to the protection which he proposed to give to the order, after his death, he made known to him the following points: first, that the order would last to the end of the world; secondly, that those who should persecute the order, would not be long-lived, unless they became converted; the third and fourth points, related to favors which our saviour promised not only to the friars minor, but to those who were sincerely attached to them. when our lord had disappeared from the table, brother leo, not knowing what had happened, was about to prepare it, as usual, for their meal, but francis stopped him, saying: "it must be washed with water, with wine, with milk, with oil, and with balm, for jesus christ has condescended to sit on it, and to make known to me from thence what will be communicated to you hereafter." as brother leo had not the articles he required, he only took oil, as jacob had done, to consecrate this table to the lord, and, having poured oil on it, he pronounced these words: "this is the altar of god." he then told his companion the four favors which had been promised and added that there was a fifth which he should not repeat: it was thought that it was out of humility; for, after his death, it was revealed to brother leo, that it consisted in that god, in consequence of the merits of the saint, had deferred punishing the country by famine, to give sinners time to be converted; and, as they did not avail themselves of it, after his death, this scourge fell on the land, and was followed by a great mortality. towards the feast of the assumption of the blessed virgin, he retired into the most secret part of the mountains, where his companions built for him a small and unpretentious cell. he remained there with leo, having forbidden the others to return to him till the feast of st. michael, and on no account to permit any persons whomsoever to have access to him. it was then the time of the fast which he prescribed for himself, in honor of the archangel; one of the nine periods of fasting he observed during the year, which will be noticed elsewhere. proposing to fast this year more rigorously than in the preceding years, he directed brother leo to bring him nothing but bread and water once a day, and that, towards evening, and place it at the threshold of his cell. "and when you come to me for matins," he added, "don't come into the cell, but only say in a loud voice, 'domine, labia mea aperies;' and if i answer, 'et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam,' you will come in, otherwise you will go back." his pious companion, who had nothing more at heart than to obey him, and be useful to him, complied minutely with all he said; but he was often obliged to return in the night, because the holy man was in ecstasy, and did not hear him. the reward of his solicitude was to be freed from a mental agitation, which he had found very troublesome; although it was not a temptation of the flesh, he nevertheless was ashamed of it, and did not dare make his father acquainted with it; he only wished to have something written by him, which he thought would enable him to overcome the temptation, or at least enable him to bear it with less difficulty. the father, knowing by revelation the state of his mind and his wish, desired him to bring him paper and ink, and he put on the top of the paper, in large characters, the letter "t," after which he wrote some praises of god, with his blessing: "may the lord bless you and take you into his keeping, may he show you his countenance, and take pity on you, may he turn his eyes towards you, and give you his peace. may god bless brother leo." "take this paper," he said, "and keep it carefully all your life." leo had no sooner received it than his temptation left him; he preserved it carefully till his death, knowing the virtue that was attached to it. this writing is still extant at assisi, in the sanctuary of the church of st. francis, and god has permitted it to be frequently used for the cure of diseases. st. bonaventure says that, in his days, it had been the means by which several miracles were effected. francis experienced on mount alvernia, what had occurred to st. anthony in the desert of thebais: after having been the means of freeing others from the attacks of the devil, he was exposed to them himself. the subtle spirit often suggested evil thoughts to him. he placed horrid spectres before him, and he even visibly struck him severe blows. once in a very narrow path, and on the edge of a deep precipice, he appeared to him in a hideous figure, and threw himself upon him to cast him down; as there was nothing by which he could support himself, francis placed his two hands on the rock, which was very hard and slippery, and they sank into it, as if it had been soft wax, and this preserved him from falling. an angel appeared to him to put away his fright, and to console him, causing him to hear celestial music, the sweetness of which in so far suspended the powers of his soul, that it seemed to him that his soul would have been separated from his body, had the music lasted much longer. he resumed his prayer in which he returned thanks for having escaped the danger, and for the consolation he had received; then he set about considering what might be the will of god. he was not, as st. bonaventure remarks, like to those inquisitive minds, who rashly endeavor to scrutinize the ways of god, and who are overwhelmed with his glory; but as a faithful and prudent servant, he endeavored to discover the intention of his master, only from the anxiety he felt to conform himself to it in all things. a divine impression induced him to think that, if he opened the book of the gospel, he would learn from jesus christ what in him and for him would be most agreeable to god. having, therefore, again prayed with great fervor, he told brother leo to take the new testament from the altar, and open it; leo opened it three times in honor of the most holy trinity, and, each time, he opened it at the passion of our blessed lord. francis, who was filled with the spirit of god, understood from this, that, as he had imitated jesus christ in the actions of his life, he must now conform himself to his sufferings, and in the pains of his passion. although his body was greatly weakened by the austerities he practised, by which he incessantly carried the cross of the son of god, he was not alarmed at the idea of having new sufferings to endure; on the contrary, he put on fresh courage for martyrdom, in which, he thought, conformity to the passion of jesus christ consists--hence the pious wish he had three times entertained of exposing himself to it. for the love he had for the good jesus, remarks st. bonaventure, was so lively, that the following words of the canticles seemed to be applied to him: "his lamps are lamps of fire and flame." the charity which inflamed his heart was so ardent and forcible, that all the waters of tribulation, and all the fury of persecution would have been unable to extinguish it. it is in this sense that st. paul said: "who shall separate us from the love of christ? shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword?" such is the exalted love which christians should have for god, if they desire to love him eternally; their hearts must be ready and willing to make every sacrifice, and to suffer everything in order to preserve this divine love. some days after the opening of the book of the gospel, leo had come at midnight to say aloud, at the door of francis' cell, "domine labia mea aperies," according to the order he had received; and receiving no reply, he had the curiosity to advance a step further, and to look through the chinks of the door, to see what was going on. he saw the cell entirely illuminated, and a bright ray of light come from heaven, and rest upon the head of the saint; he heard voices which made questions and answers; and he remarked that francis, who was prostrate, often repeated these words: "who art thou, o my god, and my dear lord? and whom and i? a worm, and thy unworthy servant." he also saw him put his hand out three times into his bosom, and each time stretch it out to the flame. the light disappeared, the conversation ceased, and leo wished to retire quickly; but the father heard him, and rebuked him severely for having watched him, and thus seen what ought to have been secret. leo asked pardon, and having obtained it, humbly entreated his master to explain to him, for the greater glory of god, the things he had seen, which francis did in these terms:-- "god manifested himself to me in the flame which you saw; he explained many mysteries to me, by his infinite goodness, and he communicated to me an immense knowledge of himself, and i was so overpowered with admiration, that i exclaimed: 'who art thou, lord, and who am i?' for nothing has tended more to my knowledge of what i am, than the contemplation of the infinite and incomprehensible abyss of the perfections of god, although from afar, and under obscure veils. "the lord then having condescended to disclose to me, as much as i am capable of knowing of his infinite greatness, i could not avoid making this reflection; that it is certain that every creature is a mere nonentity before god. while i was thus meditating, it was his pleasure to direct that, for all the good he had done me, i should make him some offering; i replied that my poverty was so great, that except the poor habit which i wore, i had nothing in the world but my body and my soul, which i had long since dedicated to him. the lord then urged me to offer him what was in my bosom, and i was surprised to find there a beautiful piece of gold, which i immediately offered to him; i found three pieces successively, which i presented to him in the same manner; it was when you saw me extend my hand in the flame. i gave thanks to god for his many benefits, and for the means he put in my power to make him some acknowledgment. he gave me to understand that the three pieces of gold, which were highly agreeable to him, represented the three modes of life which it had been his will that i should institute, and also the three vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity." when he said that nothing had tended so much to the knowledge of what he was, as the contemplation of the infinite perfections of god, he well knew that the best mode to attain the knowledge of god is to know one's self, as st. augustine and st. bernard teach us; that is to say, that in order to our obtaining peculiar lights which open to us the grandeur of god, it is necessary to be thoroughly impressed with our own vileness, be sensible of our misery, and annihilate ourselves, because the divine majesty only communicates itself to the humble. but st. francis proposed to himself to explain that, when it pleases god to manifest himself in some manner to a soul which is duly sensible of its nothingness, it is better impressed with its own nothingness, by the disproportion it sees between the sovereign being and his creature, which discovers to it a thousand imperfections which it was not previously aware of, as a ray of the sun penetrating into a room, discovers a multitude of atoms of which we were previously unaware. we may also form to ourselves an idea of this by our knowledge of human ignorance; an ignorant man is less sensible of his ignorance and sometimes he is not at all aware of it; he thinks he knows everything; but a very learned man knows that he is ignorant of an infinity of things, and finds his mind very confined. so also souls which are interiorly enlightened as to the greatness of the divinity, are more perfectly aware of their own nothingness, and are more humble than those who have not similar views. the mode adopted by the former is to dive into his own nothingness by the light of faith, to humble himself continually, in order to attain to a more exalted idea of the greatness of god and to repeat frequently this prayer of st. augustine: "o god, who art always the same! may i know myself, may i know thee." the self-knowledge which st. francis possessed in such perfection, prepared him sufficiently for the signal favor which god proposed to confer upon him, according to the principle of st. augustine, that deep foundations are requisite for a building of great height. about the festival of the exaltation of the cross, which is on the fourteenth of september (it is believed that it was on the eve), an angel appeared to him and gave him notice as he afterwards communicated to some of his companions, to prepare himself for all that god would do for him. "i am prepared for everything," he replied, "and i shall not in any way oppose his holy will, provided he condescends to assist me with his grace. although i am a useless man, and unworthy that god should cast a thought on me, nevertheless, as i am his servant, i beg he may act by me, according to his good pleasure." this generous concurrence, which had martyrdom in its view, was the last disposition which the almighty required previous to giving to francis the peculiar and signal prerogative of the stigmata, that is to say, previous to imprinting on his body the five wounds of our saviour jesus christ. we are about to put on record this marvellous event as nearly as possible in the very words of st. bonaventure, which we have extracted from his two legends. he does not name the precise day, but wading assigns good reasons for thinking it occurred on the festival of the exaltation of the cross. "francis, the servant and truly faithful minister of jesus christ, being one morning in prayer on one side of the mountain of alvernia, elevating himself to god by the seraphic fervor of his desires and by the motives of tender and affectionate compassion, transforming himself into him who, by the excess of his charity, chose to be crucified for us; he saw, as it were, a seraph, having six brilliant wings, and all on fire, descending towards him from the height of heaven. this seraph came with a most rapid flight to a spot in the air, near to where the saint was, and then was seen between his wings the figure of a crucified man, who had his hands and feet extended and fastened to a cross. his wings were so arranged that he had two of them on his head, two were stretched out to fly with, and he covered his whole body with the two others. "at the sight of such an object, francis was extraordinarily surprised; joy, mingled with grief and sorrow, spread over his soul; the presence of jesus christ, who manifested himself to him under the figure of a seraph in so marvellous a mariner, and with such familiarity, and by whom he found himself considered so favorably, caused in him an excess of pleasure; but the sorrowful spectacle of his crucifixion filled him with compassion, and his soul felt as if it was pierced through with a sword. above all, he admired with deep concern that the infirmity of his sufferings should appear under the figure of a seraph, well knowing that this does not agree with his state of immortality; and he could not comprehend the intention of the vision, when our lord, who appeared outwardly, communicated to him interiorly, as to his friend, that he had been placed before him in order to let him know that it was not by the martyrdom of the flesh, but by the inflammation of the soul, that he was to be wholly transformed into a perfect resemblance to jesus christ crucified. "the vision vanished, after having had a secret and familiar conference with him, leaving his soul filled with seraphic ardor, and imprinting on his body a figure similar to that of the crucifix, as if his flesh, like softened wax, had received the impression of the letters of a seal. for the marks of the nails immediately began to show themselves on his hands and feet, such as he had seen them on the figure of the crucified man. his feet and hands were seen to be perforated by nails in their middle; the heads of the nails, round and black, were on the inside of the hands, and on the upper parts of the feet; the points, which were rather long, and which came out on the opposite sides, were turned and raised above the flesh, from which they came out. there was, likewise, on his right side a red wound, as if it had been pierced with a lance, and from this wound there often oozed a sacred blood, which soaked his tunic, and anything he wore round his body." this is the new prodigy which jesus christ chose to exhibit in favor of francis, in order to render him more like to himself. he marked him and ornamented him with his own wounds, by a singular and glorious prerogative which had never, previously, been conceded to any one, and which justly excites the admiration of the christian world. st. bonaventure is of opinion that all human encomium falls short of what it deserves. in fact, in the midst of all the marvels which we find in the life of st. francis, we are compelled to admit that this is the one which, without any exaggeration, may be termed incomparable. what can there be so beautiful as to be visibly clothed with jesus christ, to bear on the body the lively resemblance of those wounds which are the price of our redemption, the source of life, and the pledge of salvation? what interior conformity must the servant have had with his master, to have deserved to have so marked a one exteriorly, for, no doubt, the one was in proportion to the other! this faithful servant having embraced the cross from the very commencement of his conversion, he carried it in his heart, in his mind, in his body, and in all his senses; all his love, all his desires, were centred in the cross, it was the standard of his militia. therefore did jesus christ, whose goodness appears with magnificence towards those who love him, after having honored the zeal of francis by various apparitions in his crucified state, choose, as a crowning of all his favors, that he should be himself crucified, in order that, as the love of the cross constituted his merit before god, the glory of being so miraculously fastened to it, should render him admirable in the sight of mankind. such was the sort of torment which god reserved for him in order to satisfy the extreme desire he had to suffer martyrdom, on which st. bonaventure exclaims: "o truly fortunate man, whose flesh not having been tortured by the racks of a tyrant, has nevertheless, borne the impress of the lamb that was slain! o fortunate soul, thou hast not lost the palm of martyrdom, and yet thou art not separated from the body by the sword of the persecutor!" must we not also admit that the impression of the five wounds of our savior jesus christ on his body was a true martyrdom--a precious martyrdom; rigorous in one sense, and the more so, as it was not the consequence of the cruelty of executioners, but was owing to the darts of divine love, and to the very influence of the son of god, the operation of which is most powerful; sweet and delicious in another sense, and the more so, as it was the effect of a most affectionate communication, and brought about more intimate relations? out savior, thus, in some degree, represented in his creature the situation in which he had been on the cross, enjoying sovereign beatitude, while he suffered all the pains and violence of the execution. it was in all probability after this favor of the stigmata, that francis composed the two italian canticles which are found amongst his works. in the first, the burden of which is, "in foco l'amor mi mise, in foco l'amor mi mise," he describes very practically, with figurative and very lively expressions, the struggle he had with divine love, and the attacks he had himself made on that love, the wounds which he received, the flames by which his heart was kindled, and the state of languor and faintness to which he found himself reduced, and, finally, the strength, with a tranquillity of feeling exceedingly refreshing, which jesus christ had imparted to him. in the second, which is much longer than the first, he describes the strength, elevation, and tenderness, the vehemence of the divine love in his heart; he enters into conversation with jesus christ, who answers him; and this love constantly increasing, he declares that he can resist no longer, that he consents to everything, and that he wishes no other relief than to die of love. st. theresa, speaking of her situation at prayer, in which she often found herself, as it were, intoxicated with the love of god, and quite beside herself, said: "i know a person who, without being a poet, sometimes made very good extempore verses in spiritual canticles, which expressed beautifully her sufferings. it was not from her mind that they originated; but, by order of the glory so delicious a suffering caused her; she laid her complaint in this manner before god. she would have wished to tear herself to pieces to show the pleasure she experienced in this delightful pain." these spiritual and divine emotions are neither known nor relished by profane minds and hearts, who only learn from their own corruption, and from the pestiferous books which encourage it, the extravagances and transports of criminal love; but pure minds, who know what it is to love god, and to be loved by him, are not astonished at the effects which this holy reciprocated love produced in a st. francis, in a st. theresa, and in many others. neither is it surprising that the saints who are full of the thoughts of god, should have had recourse to poetry to express the feelings of their hearts, since the sacred writers, inspired by the spirit of god, have composed many of the sacred books in poetry; this also is practised by the universal church in her divine office. the precious wounds which francis had received, were a subject of great embarrassment to him; for, in the first place, he wished to conceal them wholly, well knowing that it is "proper to conceal the secrets of the king," as the angel said to tobit; and, in the second place, he saw that the wounds were too conspicuous to remain long hidden from those of his companions who had familiar intercourse with him. his hesitation was, whether he should tell them what had occurred, in confidence, or whether he should be silent on the subject, for fear of making known the secrets of the lord. he called some of them to him and laid before them his difficulty in general terms, and solicited their advice. brother illuminatus, he from whom he had received such excellent advice in the camp before damietta, opining, from the look of astonishment which he remarked in him, that he had seen something wonderful, said: "brother, you ought to know that it is not only for your own edification, but for that of others also, that god sometimes discovers his secrets to you, for which reason you should be fearful of being reprimanded for having hidden the talent, unless you make known what is to be of service to many." francis was struck with this advice, and although on other occasions he was in the habit of saying with isaiah, "my secret is to myself," he communicated to them all what had passed in the apparition, but always with great fear; adding, that he who had appeared to him, had communicated things to him which, while he lived, he never would disclose to any one. we must believe, as st. bonaventure remarks, that the seraph whom he saw attached to the cross in so wonderful a manner, or rather, jesus christ himself in the appearance of a seraph, had said to him, as he had to st. paul, "secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter;" either because there are no words in which they can be expressed, or, as a respected author thinks, because there are no souls sufficiently disengaged from sensible objects, and sufficiently pure, to understand them. the confidence which francis had reposed in his companions, did not prevent his taking every precaution possible to hide, as much as it was in his power, the sacred marks with which the king of kings had secretly favored him. from that time forward, he kept his hands covered, so that the nails should not be seen, and he wore slippers, which covered those of his feet. wading saw in the monastery of the poor clares at assisi, the sort of slippers which st. clare made for her spiritual father, so neatly contrived that the upper part covered the heads of the nails, and, the underneath being somewhat raised, the points did not prevent his walking; for these miraculous nails did not take from him the use of his hands and feet, although it was painful to him to use them. but all the precautions which his humility had suggested, became useless; it is god's providence to reveal, for his greater glory, the wonderful things which he does. the lord himself, who had secretly marked on francis the impressions of his passion, by their means worked miracles, which manifestly disclosed their hidden and marvellous virtue. moreover, the saintly man could not prevent his wounds from being seen and touched by persons whose veracity cannot be called in question, and who rendered public testimony thereto; besides which, after his death, all the inhabitants of assisi saw, touched, and kissed them. the sovereign pontiffs of those days were so convinced of this admirable event, that they issued bulls to exalt it by their praise, and to repress by their authority those who refused credence to the fact, because they had not seen it with their own eyes. pope alexander iv certified it, as having been an eye-witness to it, in a sermon and in a bull; and st. bonaventure says that the proofs then collected made it so certain, that they were sufficient to dispel every shade of doubt. this degree of certainty is still further enhanced and rendered more respectable, since popes benedict xi, sixtus iv, and sixtus v have consecrated and extolled the impression of the stigmata on the body of st. francis, by having instituted a particular festival in their honor, which is found in the roman martyrology, on the th of september, and which is kept in the universal church. the forty days which francis had resolved to pass in solitude and fasting having terminated on michaelmas day, this new man, whom perfect love had transformed by a lively resemblance into him whom he loved, descended from the mountain, carrying with him the image of jesus christ crucified, not modelled by the hand of a workman on wood or stone, but stamped on his very flesh by the finger of the living god himself, as st. bonaventure expresses it. he became more partial than ever to mount alverno, where he had received this sacred image, and recommended to his brethren to cherish great respect for this holy place. as he descended the mountain, he met a number of the country people who had already heard of the marvellous occurrence; it is probable that god had informed the people of it by some extraordinary manifestation. at the time when it occurred, they saw at break of day the mountain illuminated by a most brilliant light, and what they heard, informed them of the reason. they wished to kiss his hands; but they were tied round with bandages, and he only offered them the tips of his fingers. in a village near arezzo, they brought him a child of about eight years of age, who had been dropsical for four years, whom he cured instantaneously by touching him. he went afterwards to montaigne, where count albert, the lord of that place, who was his good friend, and at whose house he often took his bed, received him with great pleasure. but the count was distressed to hear him say that his infirmities would not allow him to return there any more, and that the time of his death was hastening on. to mitigate the grief of such melancholy tidings, he entreated the saint to leave him some memorial of their friendship; to which francis replied, that he had nothing to give but the miserable habit he had on, but that he would willingly leave it him, provided he could get another. the change was soon effected; and it cannot be told how much albert prized the habit in which francis had received the impression of the precious pledges of our redemption. after the death of st. francis he enfolded this poor habit in rich stuffs of silk and gold, and he placed it with great veneration on the altar of the church. the lords of montaigne, from father to son, had it long in their possession; and it, at length, came in the manner related by wading, into the possession of the grand dukes of tuscany, who preserve it as a precious relic. the great infirmities which the man of god suffered, obliged him to take an ass to carry him from montaigne to mount casal, through the borough of saint sepulchre. when he reached the latter place, which is very populous, the crowd surrounded him, touched him, and pressed upon him, but he was insensible of it; he was as a dead person, in no way aware what was doing, insomuch that, having proceeded a good way from thence, and coming to himself, as one returned from the other world, he inquired of some lepers at the door of the hospital, whether they would soon get to saint sepulchre. his mind, contemplating, says st. bonaventure, with deep attention the brilliant lights of heaven, had not noticed the difference of time, place, or persons; so penetrated was he with divine communications, that he was not aware of what passed around him. on reaching mount casal, he learned that one of his religious was suffering under an extraordinary disorder, which some considered to be epilepsy, and others thought it a true case of possession by the devil, for he had all the violent contortions of those possessed. the father, who was full of tender compassion for the suffering, was greatly afflicted at seeing one of his children in this deplorable state, and he sent him a mouthful of the bread he was eating, the virtue of which was so great that, as soon as the sick man had swallowed it, he was cured, and thenceforward had no relapse into the disorder. from mount casal francis went to castello, and at the house where he went to lodge, he was required to lend his aid to a female whom the devil possessed, and compelled to talk without ceasing. the servant of god with great prudence first sent one of his companions to see and hear her, to examine into the case, to see whether it was really one of possession, or whether the woman was not counterfeiting. she gnashed her teeth,--she imitated the cry of an elephant with a dreadful countenance; she affected to laugh when she saw the religious, and ordered him to go away, saying that she did not care about him, but she was afraid of him who hid himself. the saint, who was in prayer, having heard this, came into the room, where this woman was speaking without any reserve, before many who were there. as soon as she saw him, she fell on the ground, trembling. he reproached the demon with his cruelty in thus torturing one of god's creatures, and ordered him to leave her, which he did instantly, but with so much noise as manifested his wrath. in the same town he cured a child who had an ulcer, by making the sign of the cross on the dressing which covered it. when the parents of the child took off the dressing, they saw with surprise, in lieu of the ulcer, a fleshy excrescence, like a red rose, which remained during the whole of the child's life, as a sensible proof and memorial of the miracle which had been performed. after an abode of a month at castello, the man of god set out on his return to saint mary of the angels. brother leo, who accompanied him, assures us, that during the whole way, and until his arrival in the convent, he saw a beautiful golden cross, shining--with various colors, preceding him, which stopped where he stopped, and advanced as he went on. this pious companion understood from this, that god had chosen to give to his servant the consolation of seeing with the eyes of his body that cross which he had always in his heart, and which he likewise bore in his flesh by the wounds of jesus christ. nothing is more affecting than what st. bonaventure says of the feelings of st. francis after having received the impression of these sacred wounds. these are the words of the holy doctor:-- "francis, being crucified with jesus christ in mind and body, not only burned with the ardent love of a seraph, but he likewise participated in the thirst for the salvation of souls which the son of god felt on the cross. as he could not go, as he usually had done, into the towns and villages, on account of the large nails he had on his feet, he had himself carried thither, to animate every one, although he was in a deplorable state of languor and half dead with his infirmities, to carry the cross of our saviour. he used to say to his brethren: 'let us now begin to serve the lord our god, for up to this time we have made but little progress.'" "he was also ardently desirous of returning to his first practices of humility,--to attend the lepers, and to bring his body into subjection, as he had done in the first days of his conversion. although his limbs were enfeebled by his exertions and sufferings, that did not prevent his hoping that, as his mind was yet vigorous and active, he should still combat and be victorious over his enemy. under the guidance of jesus christ, he proposed to perform some extraordinary things; for when love is the spur, which admits of no neglect nor slackness, it urges to the undertaking of things of greater importance. his body was in such unison with his mind, so submissive, so wholly obedient, that, far from resisting, it was forward in some measure, and went as it were of itself towards the attainment of the great elevation of sanctity to which he aspired." it being god's will that he should acquire the summit of merit, which is only attained by great patience, he tried him by many sorts of maladies, so grievous, that there was scarcely any part of his body in which he did not suffer excruciating pains. these reduced him to such a state, that he was scarcely more than skin and bone, almost all his flesh was wasted away; but these sufferings he did not consider as such, he denominated them his sisters, to show how much he cherished them. these words of saint francis to his brethren, "let us begin to serve the lord our god, for until now we have made little progress," contain one of the most important lessons of all spiritual life. the wise man says of the knowledge of the works of god: "when a man hath done, then he shall begin," st. augustine applies this sentence to the obscurity of the sacred writings, when he says that, the deeper they are searched, the more hidden mysteries are found in them; and it is equally applicable to christian and religious perfection. it is an error condemned by the church to believe that a man is capable of attaining in this life such a degree of perfection, as not to be able to increase it; but it would be a deplorable illusion to make use of the language condemned by saint bernard; "i have done enough, i will remain as i am: neither become worse, nor better." the just man never says, "it is enough;" he has always hunger and thirst after justice; as the apostles, "he forgets the things that are behind, and stretches himself to those that are before, to press towards the mark." to believe that we have made progress is not to do so; not to strive to advance is to go back, and to lose one's self. what instruction do we find here for the most perfect, in the example of a saint who deems himself to have made little progress in the service of god, and who wishes to begin all afresh, at a time when he is found deserving to bear on his body the wounds of jesus christ! his disorders were only afflicting to francis inasmuch as related to the vast projects he unceasingly formed for the good of souls. he was most grieved at the state of his eyes, which made his sight begin to fail. notwithstanding his other infirmities, whenever he could, he mounted on an ass, and went about, preaching penance, announcing the kingdom of god, and addressing these words to all his hearers: "jesus christ, my love, was crucified." he spoke with so much fervor, and with such assiduity, visiting sometimes five or six towns in the course of a single day, that it might be paid that god gave him, as to the prophet, the agility of a deer. however, although in the person of st. francis the interior man was renewed from day to day, yet it necessarily followed that the exterior man, borne down by so much, austerity and fatigue, began rapidly to decay. the acute pains in his eyes, and the tears he constantly shed, brought on blindness, besides it was impossible for him to preach any longer, however desirous he was to do so. moreover, he would not have recourse to remedies, although his brethren urged him to avail himself of them, because, being already in heaven in mind and heart, he wished, as the apostle had done, "to have his conversation in heaven." brother elias, vicar-general, who felt the loss which the death of his holy founder would be to the order, was most anxious to procure him relief. his feelings also induced him to wish it; for, with all his faults, he was tenderly attached to his father, and was as a mother to him by the care he took of him: of this all the first writers of the life of saint francis bear testimony. he used entreaties and argument to induce him to have recourse to medicine for his disorders, and quoted the following scriptural texts: "the most high hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them." he also on this occasion made use of the power he had received from the saint: he commanded him, on his obedience, not to resist his cure. cardinal ugolino, protector of the order, urged him also to the same effect, and warned him to be careful, lest there should be sin instead of merit in neglecting to take proper care of himself. the sick man yielded to the advice of his friends. he was removed to a small and poor cell, very near the convent of saint damian, that he might be nearer to clare and her sisterhood, who loved him as their father, and who prepared the medicines for him. he remained there forty days with the brothers masse, ruffin, leo, and angelo of rieti; but the disorder of his eyes became so painful, that he could get no rest night or day; when he endeavored to procure a little sleep, he was prevented by a number of rats, which infested the hut, and ran over his table and bed so daringly, that it was thought to be a stratagem of the evil one. seeing himself overwhelmed by an accumulation of disorders, he made the following prayer humbly to god: "my lord and god, cast thine eyes upon me, and lend me thine aid; grant me grace to bear with patience all these ills and infirmities." a voice forthwith made him this answer: "francis, what price should be set upon that which shall obtain a kingdom which is above all price? know that the pains you suffer are of greater value than all the riches of the world, and that you ought not to be rid of them for all that is in the world, even though all the mountains should be changed into pure gold, all its stones into jewels, and all the waters of the sea into balsam." "yes, lord," exclaimed francis, "it is thus that i prize the sufferings thou sendest me; for i know that it is thy will that they should be in this world the chastisements of my sins, in order to show me mercy in eternity." "rejoice, then," added the voice, "it is through the way in which you are, that heaven is reached." at these words he rose up full of fervor; and wishing that clare, who was almost always ill, should benefit by what he had just heard, he sent to her, and informed her of the tender goodness of god to man, even in the dispositions of his providence, which have the appearance of being the most severe. men who are enlightened by the light of faith,--must they not be convinced of these christian truths: that the most perfect have some sins to expiate; that the saints can only attain to heaven by suffering; that the kingdom of heaven, which is invaluable, cannot be purchased at too great a price; and that god never manifests his paternal regard in our favor more evidently than when he afflicts us in this world in order to show us his mercy in the next? what fruit might not be gathered from sicknesses and other sufferings; what alleviations, what consolations, and even what joy, might not be found, if these holy truths were but reduced to practice, which unfortunately are only viewed theoretically, and with little or no application! francis being one day at dinner, and beginning to eat, stopped suddenly, and, with his eyes raised to heaven, exclaimed in a loud voice: "may god be blessed, glorified, and exalted above all!" then leaving the room in an unusual manner, he threw himself on the ground, where he remained motionless in ecstasy during a whole hour. when he came to himself, one of the brethren whose name was leonard, who had witnessed what had passed, and had heard what he had exclaimed, spoke to him of it, as if what he had done had been very unbecoming. "my dear brother," said francis, "i had great cause for what i did, which i will communicate to you confidentially, upon condition that you will tell no one of it during my lifetime. if a king promised to give a kingdom to one of his subjects, would not that person have great reason to rejoice? what, then, did i do that was unseemly,--i whom the almighty assured of his kingdom? i was so overpowered with joy, that i could not control the emotions of my heart; you must excuse the excess in the expressions of my satisfaction, whatever it may have been, and however it may have seemed to transgress the rules of decorum. but what i did is not enough, i will praise god still more; i will unceasingly praise his holy name. i will sing hymns to his glory during the remainder of my days." after which he sat down, and after having reflected a little, he got one of his companions to write an italian canticle, which begins thus: "altissimo, omnipotente, bon signore; tue son le laude, la gloria, l'onore, ed ogni benedizione," etc. "o god, most high, most powerful, most good! to thee belong praise, honor, glory, and every blessing: these are solely to be referred to thee; neither is any man worthy to pronounce thy holy name. praise be to thee, o lord, my god! by all thy creatures." he speaks of the sun as the most brilliant of all, of the moon, the stars, the air, the wind, the clouds, the seasons, the water, the fire, the earth and all that it contains; giving praise to god for each of his creatures, whose beauties and properties he recites. this canticle resembles that which was sung at babylon, in the fiery furnace, by the three young men who were thrown into it, for not having adored the statue of nebuchodonosor. they called upon all creatures, inanimate and irrational, to praise god, as david had done before; and st. francis calls upon all to praise him, because of his creatures. this has the same result; for inanimate creatures, as st. jerome observes, only praise god by making him known to men, and by placing before them his magnificence. "when they are considered as his work," says st. augustine, "we find in them numberless reasons for singing hymns to his glory; and if his greatness is manifested in his glorious works, he is not less great in those which are less so. whatsoever god has made, praises god; there is only sin, of which he is not the author, which does not praise him." it was francis's desire that all his brethren should learn his canticle, and recite it daily, and that brother pacificus, the famous poet, of whom we have before spoken, and who was then in france or in the low countries, should put it into well-sounding verse. he called it the canticle of the sun, because of the preeminence of that beautiful planet, in which, david says, god seemed to have taken up his abode, in order to show himself to us. as his malady did not show symptoms of amelioration, elias had him removed from the convent of st. mary of the angels to foligno, in hopes that change of air might be of service to him. and he was in fact somewhat relieved by it; but god made known, by an extraordinary revelation, that he would continue to suffer until death. elias found himself overpowered with sleep, and in his slumber he saw a venerable old man, clothed in white, with pontifical ornaments, who told him that francis must prepare himself to suffer patiently for two years more, after which, death would deliver him, and would cause him to pass into perfect repose, free from all pain. he communicated this to francis, who said that the same thing had been communicated to him; and then, filled with joy, not only on account of the eternal felicity again promised him, but because the time was fixed when his soul was to be released from the prison of his body, he added this further couplet to his canticle: "be thou praised, my lord, for death our sister, from which no living man can escape," etc. "blessed are they who, at the hour of death, are found conformed to thy holy will, for they will not be overtaken by the second death. woe to those who die in mortal sin! may all creatures praise and bless god, obey him and serve him with great humility!" if we are surprised to find st. francis call death our sister, we must bear in mind that the holy man, job, said to rottenness: "thou art my father; and to the worms, you are my mother and sister." the whole of the year , francis passed in various illnesses and in great sufferings. towards autumn, cardinal ugolino and brother elias induced him to be removed to rieti, where there were able physicians and surgeons who could attend to the state of his eyes. as soon as it was known in the town, all the inhabitants met, and went to meet him; but, in order to avoid all the honors preparing for him, he had himself taken to st. fabian, a village two miles from rieti, where he lodged at the cure's. the pope was at rieti, with all his court, at that time: many of the principal persons of the court, and even cardinals, came to st. fabian to visit the holy man. while they were in conversation with him, the persons of their suite went into the cure's vineyard to eat grapes, and they gathered so many that the vineyard was nearly stripped. the cure was much displeased at this, and complained to st. francis, who asked him, how much he thought he had lost? "i usually," replied the cure, "have made fourteen measures of wine, which were sufficient for the consumption of my house." "i am sorry," said francis, "that they should have done you so much damage, but we must hope that god will find a remedy for it, and i firmly believe he will, and that, from the grapes which remain in your vineyard, he will give you fourteen measures of wine and more." the cure saw this prophecy fulfilled, for he made twenty measures from the few grapes which had been left. the magistrates of rieti caused, at a subsequent period, a convent to be built for the friars minors on this spot; and the same pope, gregory ix, out of respect for the saint, chose to consecrate the church himself, in which are still seen representations of the miracle. after some days francis could no longer avoid going to rieti, where the persons of the court received him with honors, which he gladly would have dispensed with.--he lodged there with a pious citizen, named theobald, a saracen, who had settled in the town. the dejection of spirits which his sufferings had brought upon him, made him desirous of having instrumental music to cheer him; "but," says st. bonaventure, "decorum did not allow him to ask for it, and it was god's pleasure that he should receive this agreeable consolation by means of an angel. the mere sound, which was marvellously harmonious, raised his mind so entirely to god, and filled his soul with so much delight, that he thought himself in the enjoyment of the joys of the other world. his intimate companions perceived it, and they frequently observed that god gave him extraordinary consolations, for the effects they produced on him were so manifest, that it was impossible for him to disguise them, and then he admitted to them from whence they arose." this shows that, if the saintly sufferer wished to hear some instrumental music, it was in order to listen to it for the glory of god, as st. augustine observes was the case with david, and not for any purely human gratification, nor to take any ordinary pleasure therein, nor even for the assuagement of his violent sufferings. it is true that harmonious sound will procure this relief; and without referring to what ancient writers say on this head, without noticing saul, we know that there are feelings of the body and mind, in which we experience what the wise man supposes to be a common occurrence, "that music rejoices the heart." man being born with a taste for proportion, and finding himself full of concert and harmony, it is no way surprising that the harmony and proportion of sounds should cause strong and vivid impressions on him. st. francis, who may have been naturally more affected by music than others, may also have reasonably wished for its solace, more from a desire to prevent the depression of his spirits, than from the violence of his sufferings, or from being deprived of its solace by a principle of mortification. for he was too spiritual a man not to have us convinced that his wish proceeded from a purer and more noble motive. he desired to prevent his mind from being too greatly depressed, in order to render himself more equal to interior operations, and to unite himself more easily and more intimately to god--as the prophet eliseus, who, having been greatly excited against the king of israel, caused a canticle of the temple to be sung to him, with a harp accompaniment, in order to calm his irritated mind, and to prepare him for the lights of the lord, as to the knowledge of future events. st. augustine also observes, that, after his baptism, the chant of the hymns and psalms sung in the church excited in his heart tender sentiments of piety, and drew from his eyes floods of tears. we may say: music is a science given to men by the liberality of the creator, to represent to them the admirable harmony by which he governs the world, in order to guide them by the channel of the senses, and melody of sounds, to the knowledge and love of immutable truth. this is also the true use of music, and it is only with this view that the church permits it in the divine service. that which is soft and effeminate, which is calculated to excite the passions, by multitudes of ambiguous expressions, (not the less dangerous for being so cloaked) should be considered by christians as an abuse the more deplorable, as it has even been censured and condemned by the pagans. all the skill of the physicians and surgeons of rieti not having had any effect towards the cure of their patient, he had himself taken to his convent of fonte colombo, where they were to continue their remedies; and it was their opinion that a hot iron should be applied above his ear, from which it was expected he would obtain relief. for this reason his brethren urged him to give his consent, which he willingly did, in hopes to recover his sight thereby, and then to continue his exertions for the salvation of souls; and also because, the operation being very painful, he would have an opportunity of voluntary suffering. when they were about to apply the red-hot iron, he could not avoid feeling a natural sense of fear; in order to overcome it, he addressed the fire as we should speak to a friend: "my brother," said he, "the most high has given you great beauty, and has made you most useful; be favorable to me on this occasion. i entreat the great god who created you, to temper your heat, so that i may be able to bear it." he then made the sign of the cross on the instrument, and without any fear presented himself to receive the impression. his companions, not having courage to witness the operation, left the room. the physician and surgeon remained alone with him, and the hot iron was pressed from over his ear to his eyebrow, into his flesh. after the operation, the brothers having returned, he said to them: "praise the lord, for i assure you i neither felt the heat of the fire, nor any pain." then he reproached them mildly in these words: "why did you fly, you pusillanimous men, and of little faith? he who preserved the three young men in the furnace of babylon, could he not temper in my favor the heat of my brother, the fire?" we shall see further what an exalted principle it was which induced him to qualify all creatures by the names of his brothers and sisters. he said to the physician: "if the flesh is not sufficiently burnt, replace the hot iron." the physician, struck with so much fortitude in so feeble a body, saw that it was miraculous, and said to the religious: "i see truly to-day a most wonderful occurrence." st. bonaventure, who relates this, makes the following observation: that francis having attained so high a degree of perfection, his body was subject to his mind, and his mind to god; with admirable harmony it followed from thence, by a peculiar disposition of divine providence, that inanimate creatures which obey god, obeyed his servant also, and forebore from hurting him, according to the words: "o lord! the creature being subject to thee, as to its creator, renovates its strength to torment the wicked, and softens it to contribute to the good of those who trust in thee." it is, moreover, remarkable that st. francis feared when he saw the red-hot iron,--he who had consented to have the remedy applied, because it was severe, and who had offered, when in egypt, to cast himself into the fire to prove the truth of the christian religion. it is thus that god permits his saints to become sensible of their natural weakness in trifling things, in order that they may be sensible that in greater things all their strength depends upon his grace. the disorder in the eyes of st. francis was caused by the tears he continually shed. his physician told him he ought to restrain them, unless he wished to lose his entire sight; and this is the reply he gave him: "my dear brother doctor, for the love of corporal sight, which we enjoy in common with flies, we must not set aside for a single instant the divine illustrations; for the mind has not received the favor on account of the body, it has been granted to the body on account of the mind." he liked better, says st. bonaventure, to lose corporal sight than to check for a single moment that tender and affectionate devotion which calls forth tears, by which the interior sight is purified and rendered competent to see an infinitely pure god. in order to show some gratitude to the physician for the trouble he took in his regard, francis one day desired the brethren, in his presence, to take him to dine with them. they represented to him that their poverty was such that they had nothing which was fit to place before a person of his consideration, for this physician was in great estimation, and very rich. "men of little faith," replied the saint, "why have you these doubts? why have you not considered more favorably the merit of obedience? go and take to the refectory our honorable brother, the doctor." they took him, seeing that he would consent to partake of their poor fare out of devotion, but, just as they were sitting down to table, there was a ring at the bell; it was a woman, who brought, in a basket, several dishes exceedingly well dressed, which a lady, who lived at a country house, six miles off, sent to the servant of god. he desired that these might be offered to the physician, and that he might be told that the lord took care of his own. the doctor admired the hand of providence, and said to the religious: "my brethren, we do not sufficiently understand the holiness of this man; and even you who live with him, have no conception of the secret virtue with which his mind is replenished." this physician was not less charitable than learned; he had great pleasure in prescribing for this sick man, he frequently visited him, and paid the expense of the medicines he required. god, who considered as done to himself what was done to his servant who could not repay him, rewarded him in this world by a miracle worked in his favor. he had laid out all his ready money in building a house which was only just finished, when one of the principal walls was found to have a large crack in it from the top to the bottom, which no human art could make good. full of faith and confidence in the merits of francis, he begged his companions to give him something which the holy man had touched. after many entreaties they gave him some of his hair, which he placed at night in the fissure in the wall. he came back in the morning, and found the whole so completely closed, that it was not only impossible to get back the hair, but it was no longer perceivable that there had been any rent in the wall. the good offices which he had manifested to a worn-out body prevented, says st. bonaventure, the ruin of the house he had just built. some days after, francis was taken to rieti, where the bishop lodged him in his palace; they brought to the foot of his bed, upon a tressel, one of the canons, who was dangerously ill; he had been a very worldly man, who had lived a dissipated life, but who, struck with the fear of approaching death, entreated the saint to make the sign of the cross upon him. "how," said francis, "shall i make the sign of the cross on you, who, without any fear of the judgments of god, have given yourself up to the lusts of the flesh? i will do it, however, because of the pious persons who have interceded in your favor. but, bear in mind that you will suffer much greater ills, if, after your cure, you should return to your vomit, for the sin of ingratitude and relapse makes the last state of man worse than the first." he then made the sign of the cross upon the sick man, who immediately arose, praised god, and exclaimed, "i am healed." all the bystanders heard his bones crack, as when dry sticks are broken. that unhappy man, however, did not remain long without plunging again into vice; and one night, as he was in bed at the house of a canon where he had supped, the roof of the house fell in and crushed him, without hurting any one else. "it was," says the same holy doctor, "by a just judgment of god; for the sin of ingratitude is a contempt of the graces of god, for which we ought to be most thankful; and the sins into which we again fall after repentance, displease him more than any others. will it never be understood that, in the diseases of the soul, as in those of the body, there is nothing so dangerous as a relapse?" the pains felt by francis were in some degree assuaged, his sight was restored, and he made use of this interval to have himself taken into several parts of umbria, of the kingdom of naples, and of the adjacent provinces, in order to work for the salvation of souls. at penna, a young religious who was naturally good, and of great promise, came to ask his pardon for having left the order, which he had only done at the instigation of the evil spirit, who persuaded him that by living privately, he could better sanctify himself. as soon as the saint saw him, he fled to his cell, and shut the door; when he came out again, his companions expressed their surprise at what he had done: "do not be astonished," he said, "at my having fled; i saw on this young man a frightful demon, who was endeavoring to throw him down a precipice, and i acknowledge to you that i could not bear his presence. i have prayed as earnestly as i could for the deliverance of this poor brother from such a seducer, and god has heard my prayer." then, having sent for him, and telling him what he had seen, he exhorted him to be on his guard against the snares of the devil, and not to separate himself again from his brethren: "for, if you do otherwise," he added, "you will not fail to fall into the precipice from which the mercy of god has preserved you." the docile and faithful religious passed the remainder of his days in great piety, and in the exercises of a regular life. at calano, a town of the duchy of marsi, in the farther abruzzo, where francis was come to preach, a common soldier pressed him so earnestly to come and dine with him, that he could make no excuse. he therefore went, with one companion, who was a priest,--a circumstance which was very serviceable. the poor family of the soldier having received them with great joy, the saint began to pray, as was his custom, and he had his eyes constantly raised to heaven. he then said to the soldier, privately, "my brother and my host, you see i have acceded to your request in coming to dine with you. now, follow my advice, and make haste; for it is not here, but elsewhere, that you will dine. confess your sins with as much exactness and sorrow as you can; the lord will reward you for having received his poor ones with such good religious intentions." the soldier, placing confidence in what the servant of god said to him, made his confession to francis' companion, regulated his temporal affairs, and prepared himself, as well as he could, for death. when that was done, he sat down with the others at table, and a minute afterwards he expired suddenly. then were the words of the gospel fulfilled, that he who should receive a prophet as a prophet, that is to say, not seeing in him any other qualification, receives also the reward of the prophet, inasmuch as the prediction of francis enabled him to fortify himself by penance against death, which he did not think to be so near at hand. it was probably in this apostolic tour that the servant of god performed a miracle on the person of st. bonaventure, who, under the dispositions of divine providence; was to become one of the most illustrious of his children. he was born at bagnarea in tuscany, a town belonging to the ecclesiastical states, in the year , and he was baptized by the name of john. his father, john fidenza, and ritella, his mother, joined to the nobility of their birth a large fund of piety. in his infancy he was seized with a mortal illness, of which he was cured by st. francis, which was one of the reasons why he determined to write his life. "i should fear," he says in his preface to his legend, "that i should be accused of criminal ingratitude if i neglected to publish the praises of him, to whom i acknowledge that i owe the life of my body and my soul." it is reported, with the circumstances which he himself may have told, and the memory of which may have been preserved by tradition, that his mother, having no further hopes of saving him by means of medicaments, came and presented him to st. francis, who was renowned in italy, at that time, for the splendor of his sanctity and his miracles; she implored the aid of his prayers, and made a vow that, if the child was saved, she would give him to his order. the holy man consoled the afflicted mother, and obtained from god the cure of her son, to the astonishment of the physicians, who had deemed his disorder incurable. at the sight of this miraculous cure, he said, in the italian language: "o buona ventura!" "how fortunate!" from whence came the name of bonaventure; and finally, he foretold that the child would become a great light in the church of god, and that through him his order would receive great increase of sanctity. in the year , being then twenty-two years old, he proposed to fulfil his mother's vow, and take the habit of a friar minor. this is not the place to narrate his illustrious actions, but we must notice two remarkable circumstances which are connected with st. francis. the first is, that, as this blessed patriarch bears the name of seraphic, because of the divine love with which he was inflamed, when jesus christ, under the figure of a seraph, imprinted on him the sacred stigmata, so st. bonaventure has been called the seraphic doctor, "because his whole doctrine, as well as his whole life, breathes the fire of charity." it is a torch which burns and illuminates; it influences while instructing; whatever truths he expounds, he brings back all to god by love, and, to define him properly, he should be styled the seraphic and cherubic doctor. tis thus that gerson, the chancellor of the university of paris, expresses himself. "if i am asked," he continues, "who amongst the doctors seems to me the best calculated to instruct, i answer, without detracting from any other, it is bonaventure, because he is sure, solid, exact, and devout, at one and the same time; and separating from his theology all questions foreign from the purpose, all superfluous dialectic, and that obscurity of terms with which so many others load their works, he turns into piety all the beautiful lights he gives to the mind. in a word, there is not a doctrine more mild, more salutary, more sublime, than his; and in devotion alone can neglect it. as to me," he adds, "having recommenced studying it since i am grown old, the more i advance the more i am confounded, and i say to myself: "what is the use of so much talking, and so much writing? here is a doctrine which is quite sufficient of itself, and it is only necessary to transcribe and to spread it into facts.'"--such is the opinion of the celebrated gerson as to st. bonaventure, before he was canonized, declared a doctor of the church, and honored by the title of seraphic, which he shares with his blessed father. the abbot trithemius, of the order of st. benedict, passes a similar eulogium on him, to which the sovereign pontiffs, sixtus iv. and sixtus v., have added the crowning point in their bulls, the one for his canonization, the other for his doctorship. the second particularity of his life, which had relation to st. francis, is, that he gloriously verified his prediction as to the fruits of sanctity which he was to bring to the order. having been elected general when he was five and thirty years of age, in consequence of his great talents and eminent virtues, he governed his brethren for eighteen years with so much zeal, light, mildness, and wisdom, that he perfectly made amends for the evil which the relaxation of some and the perplexity of others had occasioned. he prepared such judicious regulations for the form of government, for the recital of the divine office, for the regularity of discipline, that they have served as a basis and foundation for all the statutes which have since been introduced into the order. he decided on the difficulties which occurred as to the observation of the rules, and this with so much precision, that, in order to follow them exactly and conscientiously, without scruple, it is only necessary to practise what he has clearly laid down. he composed spiritual treatises, so elevated, so instructive, and so affecting, that they are alone sufficient to guide the friars minors, or all other persons of piety, to the sublimest perfection. he answered, with so much strength and judgment, the philosophers of his day, who attacked the mendicant orders, despite of the sovereign pontiffs, by whom they were approved, that his works, with those of the angelic doctor, st. thomas aquinas, will ever cover with confusion whosoever may attempt to renew the former disputes on this head. the exertions which st. francis made, during a short interval from pain, for the salvation of souls, in an unfavorable season of the year, increased all his maladies. his legs became inflamed, and he was obliged to lie by in a small hamlet near nocera. when this was known at assisi, the fear they had lest he should die on the way, and lest his country should be deprived of his precious remains, induced the authorities to send means to bring him into town. this deputation, returning with the patient, arrived at the dinner hour in the village of sarthiano, where they found nothing to be purchased for their meal, although they offered a double price for every thing they wanted. upon their complaining of this, francis said: "you have not found anything, because you have had greater confidence in your flies than in your lord" (he called their money flies); "but return to the houses where you have been, and ask them humbly for alms, offering to pray to god for them in payment. don't think, under false impressions, that there is anything mean or shameful in this, for, since sin came into the world, all the good which god so liberally bestows on man, on the just, and on sinners, on the worthy and unworthy, is done by means of alms, and he is the chief almsgiver." these men overcame their bashfulness, and went cheerfully to beg for the love of god, and got whatever they wanted, although they had not been able to obtain it for money; god having so touched the hearts of the inhabitants, that, in giving what they had, they even offered spontaneously every service. the bishop of assisi had the man of god brought to his palace, and kept him there till the spring of the year , providing him with everything he required, with great affection. one day, when his stomach loathed everything, he expressed a wish for a particular sort of fish, which the severity of the winter made it difficult to procure, but, at the very moment, a messenger sent by brother gerald, the guardian of the convent of rieti, brought three large fishes of this species, with certain sauces which were calculated to sharpen the appetite and strengthen the patient. thus it is that it sometimes pleases the lord to give sensible relief to his friends who have neglected their health and crucified their flesh for his sake. the children of the holy patriarch, and particularly elias, his vicar- general, who saw that there was no amelioration in the state of his health, but that, on the contrary, his disorders increased with the renewal of the year, entreated him to allow himself to be removed to sienna, where the mild climate and the excellence of the physicians might afford him some relief, if there were no hopes of a cure. and they urged this so energetically, that, as he was mild and obliging, he consented to be taken thither at the beginning of april. but all his ills continued, and the disorder of his eyes was greatly increased. a red-hot iron was again applied to both sides of his head, from the ears to the eyebrows, but this had no good effect, though he suffered no pain from it, god having renewed the miracle he had before performed in his favor. so the mild air of sienna, and the kind care of the physicians, did not prevent the sufferings of francis from continuing and increasing. during one night he vomited so much blood, and he was to such a degree weakened from it, that it was thought he was about to expire. his children, cast down and in tears, came to him, like the disciples of st. martin, when he was on the point of death, and said to him, sobbing:-- "dear father and master, we are greatly distressed to see you suffer so intensely, but we are likewise afflicted for ourselves. after all your labors you are about to go to the enjoyment of eternal repose, but we shall remain without our father and pastor, you have begotten us in jesus christ by the doctrine of the gospel, and we are scarcely born before we lose you. who will instruct us? who will console us? you have been everything to us, your presence has been our happiness. to whom do you consign us, in the desolate state in which we are? alas! we foresee that after your departure ravenous wolves will invade your flock. leave us, at least, something of yours to remind us of your instructions, in order that we may follow them when you are no more; and give us your blessing, which may be our shield against our enemies." the holy patriarch, casting his eyes affectionately on his children, called out to brother benedict of piratro, who was his infirmarian, and who, during his illness, said mass in his room: "priest of god," said he, "commit to writing the blessing i give to all my brethren, as well to those who are now in the order, as to those who shall embrace it to the end of the world. as my great sufferings and extreme weakness prevent me from speaking, here are in a few words my intentions and last wishes: 'may all the brethren love each other as i have loved them, and as i now love them. may they always cherish and adhere to poverty, which is my lady and my mistress; and never let them cease from being submissive and faithfully attached to the prelates and all the clergy. may the father, son, and holy ghost bless and protect them! amen.'" his sufferings being in some degree modified, and his weakness no longer so intense, his zeal induced him to think of instructing and exhorting the absent, for, by the example of the son of god, he loved his own even to the last. as soon as brother elias, the vicar-general, learnt the extreme danger in which the father was, he came in great haste to sienna, and proposed to him to be removed to the convent of celles, near cortona. francis was very glad to see him, and was quite willing to be removed to celles, where he was attended with great care by the relations and friends of elias, who were of that country. but, as he became swollen, and the sufferings of his stomach and liver were greatly increased, he requested to be taken to assisi; which the vicar-general had done with all the care and precaution possible. his return was a source of extraordinary gratification to the inhabitants, who had been fearful of being deprived of so great a treasure had he died elsewhere. they went in crowds to meet him, with great expressions of pleasure, and the bishop received him again into his palace. before we put on record the last acts and precious death of st. francis, it will be proper to notice the state in which his order was at that time. there were some of his brethren in all parts of the known world. in europe, they filled all italy. greece furnished them a province. the esteem of the great, and the love of the people, procured for them, daily, new houses in spain, portugal, france, the low countries, and england. they had spread into scotland, and began to be received in ireland. brother albert, of pisa, had sent missioners into upper and lower germany, with great success. they had penetrated into poland, and into the countries of the north. in asia, those whom the holy patriarch had left, with others who followed, multiplied the missions among the saracens. in africa they continued to preach jesus christ to the mohammedans, and we see by letters dated from rieti, the th october, , which pope honorius addressed to the friars preachers and minors, destined by the apostolic see for the mission into the kingdom of the miramolin, "that they renounced themselves, and desired to sacrifice their lives for jesus christ, in order to gain souls for him." the second order instituted by francis, and called that of the poor dames, spread itself also throughout europe, and the third order of penance made stupendous progress. the children of this holy patriarch, being thus spread in all parts, preached the gospel to the infidels, repressed heresies, attacked vice, inspired virtue, and gave admirable examples of poverty, humility, penance, and all perfection. anthony, of padua, preached in italy and france with so much lustre, that he has ever been considered as one of the most marvellous preachers whom italy ever saw. the strength and the unction of his discourses, the eminent sanctity of his life, the evidence of his miracles, changed the face of the towns in which he announced the word of god. his auditors, penetrated with conjunction, and bursting into tears, excited each other to works of penance; the revengeful, the lascivious, the avaricious, the usurers became converted, and resorted so to the tribunals of penance that the number of priests were insufficient to hear the confessions. in the year he came to toulouse, and visited other towns of france, where his principal object was to confront the heretics. animated with the same spirit which inspired his father, francis, with so perfect an attachment to the roman church, and the holy see, he was the declared enemy of all errors, and he labored with all his strength to root them out. by quotations from the holy scriptures, with which he was intimately conversant, and the sense of which he perfectly understood, and by the solidity of his reasoning, he confounded the sectarians, and created a great horror of the false doctrines they taught. with admirable tact he discovered their artifices and frauds, which he laid before the people, to preserve them from their seduction; and, in fine, he pursued them with so much vigor and perseverance, that the faithful gave him the name of the indefatigable mallet of the heretics; none of them ventured to enter the lists with him, not even to say a word in his presence. god favored him by converting a very great number of their supporters, and, what is very singular, many of the heads of their party. at bourges a man whose name was guiald, and whom the historian calls an heresiarch, was so convinced by the power of his words, and by a marked miracle of the real presence of jesus christ in the eucharist, that he persevered till death in the catholic faith, and in submission to the church. another named bonneville, or banal, who is also stated to have been an heresiarch, who had been thirty years buried in the darkness of errors, was converted in a similar manner at rimini by the sermons of st. anthony, and had a like perseverance. the state in which, as we have just shown, st. francis left his order when on the point of death, must be looked upon as one of the principal marvels of his life. god had predestined him for this great work; he labored at it for eighteen years without ceasing, with all possible assiduity, and, on the eve of quitting this world, he might say, in conforming himself to jesus christ, after having profited by his grace: "i have glorified thee on earth; i have finished the work thou gavest me to do, i now go to thee." happy the christian whose conscience bears him thus out on the bed of death, who can say that he has endeavored to do what god required of him, and fulfilled the duties of his profession. book v the cruel and continued pain under which the holy patriarch suffered, did not prevent his giving instruction to his children, his providing for their spiritual wants, and his answering, with admirable presence of mind, to various questions which were put to him relative to the observance of the rule, and the government of the order. he spoke as freely, and with as much composure, as if he felt no inconvenience. as his body became weaker, his mind seemed to acquire fresh vigor. one day, when his sufferings were greatly aggravated, he saw that the brothers took great pains in endeavoring to afford him relief, and fearing that fatigue would cause some of those who were about him to become impatient, or that they might complain that their attendance on him prevented them from observing their spiritual exercises, he addressed them affectionately, saying: "my dear children, do not tire of the trouble you take for me, for our lord will reward you, both in this life and in the next, for all you do for his little servant; and if my illness takes up your time, be assured that you will gain more from it, than if you were to labor for yourselves, because the aid you give me is given to the entire order and to the lives of the brethren. i also assure you that god will be your debtor for all that you will do for me." it is very true that those who assisted the saint in his illness labored for the entire order, and for the spiritual life of his brethren, because they aided in the preservation of him who was so necessary to his order; and they put it in his power to give further instructions to his brethren who were now in it, and to those who were to enter it in future. on another occasion, when his sufferings were apparently bringing him to extremity, one of his infirmarians said to him: "brother, pray that god may treat you with less severity, for it seems that his hand presses too severely upon you." at these words francis exclaimed in a loud voice: "if," said he, "i was not aware of the simplicity and uprightness of your heart, i should not dare to remain in the same house with you from this instant. you have had the rashness to criticise the judgments of god in my regard;" and immediately, notwithstanding the weak state in which he was, he threw himself on the ground with such violence that his worn-out bones were all bruised; he kissed the ground and exclaimed: "my god, i return thee thanks for the pains i endure, and i pray thee to add to them an hundred-fold, if such should be thy good pleasure. it will be pleasing to me to know that, in afflicting me, thou dost not spare me, for the greatest consolation i can enjoy is, that thy holy will shall be fulfilled." he had in his sufferings similar feelings to those of holy job, and he expressed himself in a similar manner. ought not all christians to have such feelings in their illnesses and other afflictions? are the saints not to be imitated in this? may we not, by the grace of god, which assuredly will not be wanting, practice those virtues by which they became saints? clare and her daughters, hearing that their father was so dangerously ill, sent to express to him the grief which it caused them, and they entreated him to mitigate their sorrow by sending them at least his blessing. the holy patriarch, full of tenderness for these pious virgins, and sympathizing in their grief, and in that which they would feel on his death, sent them some verses he had composed in the praise of the lord, and added to them a letter of exhortation, in which doubtless he gave them his blessing most amply; but this is not found in his works. we find only the following fragment, which may belong to the letter he had written to them at that time:-- "i, brother francis, little man, i choose to follow the example of the life and poverty of jesus christ, our most high lord, and that of his holy mother, and to persevere in it to the end. i beg you also, all you whom i consider as my ladies, and i recommend you to conform yourselves at all times to this life and to this poverty, the sanctity of which is so great. be careful not to swerve from it in the least, nor to listen to any advice, nor to anything which may be said to contravene it." the oldest historians of the order say that, in the letter he sent them shortly before his death, he entreated them, that, as the lord had brought them together from many places, in order that they might apply themselves to the practice of the sacred virtues of charity, humility, poverty, and obedience, they should use every effort to pass their lives accordingly, and to die in holy perserverance. he exhorts those of his sisters who were suffering from sickness, to have patience under their ills. and because he knew how austere they were, he recommended them to use with discretion, and with joy and thankfulness, the alms which divine providence sent them. he promised clare that she should see him, and, in fact, after his death she and her daughters did see him, as shall hereafter be related. the same writers add, that he had always entertained peculiar affection and regard for these holy religious females, thinking that the holiness of their life, which had been from the beginning one of great poverty and mortification, reflected glory on the religious state, and was a source of great edification to the whole church. he wrote to them several other times, to encourage them in virtue, and particularly in the love of poverty, as we find in the will of st. clare, but the letters are not extant. even to this day we are sensible of the truth of what he said; nothing is more glorious for the regular state, and nothing more edifying for the whole church, than to see the nuns of st. clare, who keep the rule of their order without the slightest mitigation, who renounce the possession of any property whatsoever, whether private or in common, who live wholly on alms, and in such a state of rigorous austerity, that the stronger sex would find to be quite appalling. as soon as it was known in assisi that the holy man was at the point of death, the magistrates placed guards round the episcopal palace, with orders to keep strict watch, lest his body should be taken away the moment he should have expired, and thus the city would be deprived of so precious a treasure. the physician, whose name was john lebon, a native of arezzo, communicated to him that death was approaching; his brethren told him the same thing. full of joy, he began to praise god, and having caused some of the choir-singers to be called in, he sang with them in a loud voice the last verses which he had added to the canticle of the sun: "be praised, o lord! for death, our sister--which no man living on earth can escape." elias, whose thoughts were always governed by human prudence, was fearful lest his singing should be considered a weakness of mind arising from the fear of death, and entreated him to stop. "brother," replied francis, with extraordinary fervor, "permit me to rejoice in the lord, and to thank him for the great tranquillity of my conscience. i am, through his mercy and his grace, so united to my god, that i have just reason to manifest the joy that he gives me, who is the high and most liberal giver of all good gifts; and do not imagine that i am so wanting in courage as to tremble at the approach of death." he had his children brought to him, and he blessed each one of them as the patriarch jacob had done, giving to each an appropriate blessing. then, after the example of moses, who blessed all the faithful israelites, he gave a general and ample blessing to the whole order. as he had stretched his arms one over the other in the form of a cross, as jacob had done in blessing the children of joseph, his right hand came upon the head of elias, who was kneeling on his left. he asked who it was, for his sight was quite gone, and being answered that it was brother elias, he said: "'tis well, my right hand is properly placed on him. my son, i bless you in all and above all. inasmuch as under your hand the most high has increased the number of my brethren and children, thus i bless them all in you. may god, the sovereign lord of all things, bless you in heaven and on earth! as for me, i bless you as far as is in my power, and even more than that--may god who can do all, do in you what i cannot! i pray that god may bear in mind your labors and your works, and that he may give you a share in the rewards of the just, that you may obtain the blessings you wish for; and may what you solicit worthily be fulfilled!" the reader may perhaps be surprised that francis, who knew brother elias, and who had learnt by revelation that he was to die out of the order, should have given him a share in his blessing; but we must recollect that he who enlightens the saints, inspires them with views similar to his own. he loves and favors those who are in a state of grace, although he foresees the great sins they will commit hereafter. what affection had he not for david, and what favors did he not heap upon him before he became guilty of the adultery and homicide which rendered him so criminal! thus, in a manner, the holy patriarch, in blessing elias, only had in consideration the good dispositions in which he believed him to be at that time, independent of the future, which god had revealed to him, and which was not to guide him in this instance. moreover, elias was his vicar-general, and was so by an order from on high; he had labored usefully in the works of the lord; the talents he possessed put it in his power to do still more good service; we cannot deny that he was sincerely and tenderly attached to his father, and that he had an ardent zeal:--all these circumstances united might have induced the saint to give him an ample blessing, nor was it without good effect, since he died in sentiments of true repentance. the man of god finding the day of his death, which jesus christ had revealed to him, draw near, said to his brethren in the words of the prince of the apostles: "the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand;" and he begged them to have himself taken to the convent of st. mary of the angels, wishing, as st. bonaventure remarks, to render up the spirit which had given life to him, in the place where he had received the spirit of grace. he was, therefore, removed, according to his desire; and when he had come to the place between the town and the convent, he asked if they had reached the hospital of the lepers, and, as those who were carrying him replied in the affirmative, he said: "turn me now towards the town, and set me down on the ground." then raising himself upon the litter, he prayed for assisi, and for all its inhabitants. he likewise shed tears, in considering the ills which would come upon the city, during the wars which he foresaw, and he then gave it this blessing: "be blest by the lord, o city, faithful to god! because many souls will be saved in thee and by thee. a great number of the servants of the most high will dwell within thy walls, and among the number of thy artisans not a few will be chosen for eternal life." some time after his arrival at st. mary of the angels, he called for paper and ink, that he might acquaint dame jacqueline de septisal of the proximity of his death: she was the illustrious roman widow who was so much attached to him. "it is right," he said, "that, dying, i should give that consolation to a person who afforded me so many consolations during my life." this is what he dictated for her: "to the lady jacqueline, the servant of the most high, brother francis, the poor little servant of jesus christ, sends greetings, and communication with the holy ghost, in jesus christ." "know, my very dear lady, that jesus christ, blessed for ever, has done me the favor to reveal to me the end of my life: it is very near. for which reason, if you wish to see me alive, set out as soon as you shall have received this letter, and hasten to st. mary of the angels, for, if you arrive later than saturday, you will find me dead. bring with you some stuff, or rather, a sackcloth, to cover my body, and some wax-lights for my funeral. pray bring also some of those comfits which you gave me when i was sick at rome." at these words he stopped, having his eyes raised to heaven. he said it was not necessary to go on with the letter, nor to send a messenger, because the lady had set out, and was bringing with her all that was required; and, in fact, she arrived shortly after with her two sons and a considerable suite, bringing with her the stuff, a quantity of wax-lights, and certain electuaries which were comforting for the stomach. the religious asked her how she could have come so opportunely, without having had notice given her, and how she came to bring all that was requisite for the time. she told them that during the night she had received an order from heaven, and that an angel had requested her not to leave out any of the things which had been desired. on friday, october the th, francis again collected all his brethren together, blessed them a second time, and having blessed a loaf of bread with the sign of the cross, he gave to each a piece as a symbol of union and fraternal charity. they all partook of it with great devotion, representing to themselves, in this repast of love, the last supper which jesus christ ate with his disciples. brother elias, who wept bitterly, was the only one who did not eat his portion, which was perhaps a mournful foreboding of the division he was to introduce into the order. in truth, he kept the piece he had received from their father respectfully in his hand; but, as if he had cast aside the charity which was offered him, instead of, at least, keeping the morsel of bread, he gave it to brother leo, who asked him for it. great care was taken for its preservation, and god permitted that it should be subsequently used for the cure of many maladies. all the brothers had melted into tears, and the holy patriarch inquired where bernard, his eldest son, was. and bernard having drawn near, he said: "come, my son, that i may bless you before i die." feeling that he was kneeling on his left, while brother giles was on his right, he put his hands again crosswise, so that his right hand came on the head of bernard, to whom he gave this blessing:-- "may the father of our lord jesus christ bless you with all the spiritual blessings which he has shed from on high on his son. as you were chosen the first to give good example of the evangelical law in this order, and to imitate the poverty of jesus christ, to whom you generously offered your goods and your person in the odor of sweetness, so may you be blessed by our lord jesus christ, and by his poor servant; and may you be so blessed in your going out and coming in, waking or sleeping, living and dying. may he who blesses you, be filled with blessings; and may he who curses you, not remain unpunished. be the lord of your brethren, and let them be all subject to you. let all those whom you shall approve, be admitted into the order, and all whom you shall reject, be rejected. let no one have authority over you, so that you may be at liberty to go and dwell where you think proper." bernard having retired, with his eyes bathed in tears, francis said to the others: "my intention is, and i direct that whoever may be appointed minister general, may so love and honor brother bernard as myself, and that all the provincial ministers, as well as all the brethren of this order, may look upon him as they have done on me; in fact, i leave him to you as the half of my soul. there are few who are able to appreciate his virtue: it is so great, that satan never ceases from tempting him, molesting him, and laying snares for him. but, by god's help, he will get the better of all, to the great profit of his soul, and he will find himself in an extraordinary manner in perfect tranquillity." those who were present, and who afterwards lived with bernard, witnessed the fulfilment of these predictions. his eminent sanctity, well known to francis, and of which he foresaw the perseverance, was the reason why he ordered the others to respect him as their master, and why he rendered him independent, in order that he might have full leisure to give himself up to contemplation, which had such charms for him. for a similar reason, he gave him power to admit or reject novices, as his prudence should dictate: a privilege which was the more appropriate, as bernard had been the first to enter into the order. st. bonaventure is silent as to the manner and fervor with which the servant of god received the last sacraments, following in that the method of many old authors who, in the lives of saints, only notice those things which are peculiar and marvellous, without speaking of the common and ordinary actions of all christians. but we have only to bear in mind the great respect st. francis had for all the practices of the church; the spirit of penance by which he was animated; the vivid and tender affections of his heart towards the passion of the son of god, and the mystery of the holy eucharist; the ardor of his zeal to cause jesus christ to be adored in the august sacrament, and revered in all that related to it; his eagerness in recommending the frequent approach to the holy communion, and the constant recourse he himself had to this balm for the soul, so that for fear of being deprived of it, he chose to have mass said in his own room during his illnesses:--all these recollections, being united, are demonstrations of what must have been the dispositions of the saint when the last sacraments were administered to him. he particularly desired all his brethren to have a peculiar veneration for the church of st. mary of the angels, because it had been revealed that the blessed virgin had a singular affection for this church among all those which were dedicated to her name, and upon this subject he spoke as follows, with great animation:-- "it is my desire that this place shall be always under the direction of the person who shall be minister-general and servitor of the order; and that the minister shall be careful to select for its service only good and holy brethren; and that the clerics who shall be appointed to it shall be taken from those of the order who are the best and the holiest, and are the best instructed for the celebration of the divine offices, so that their brethren and the seculars may be edified in seeing and hearing them. let them also be particular in choosing the lay brethren to be placed there; let them be discreet, mild, and humble men, whose lives are holy, who shall serve the others without entering into idle discourse, not talk of the news, or what is passing in the world, nor of any thing which does not relate to the salvation of souls. it is also my desire that none of the brethren shall come here except the minister-general and his companions, and that no secular shall be admitted, in order that those belonging to the place may the better preserve themselves in purity and holiness, and that the place itself may remain pure and holy, being solely devoted to singing the praises of the lord. when god shall be pleased to call any one of them to himself, i desire that the minister-general may send another whose life shall be equally holy. my intention is, that, if the brethren shall swerve from the path of perfection, this place shall be ever blest, and shall remain as the example and model for the whole order; as a beautiful torch before the throne of god, and before the altar of the blessed virgin, where lamps shall be ever burning, to obtain from the goodness of god that he may grant his pardon to the brethren for all their faults, and preserve and protect this order which he has planted with his own hand." "my children," he continued, "be careful never to abandon this spot, and if you are driven out on one side, return by the opposite one; for it is holy, it is the dwelling-place of jesus christ, and of the blessed virgin, his mother. it is here that the lord, the most high, has multiplied our numbers, from being very few; here, by the light of his wisdom, he enlightened the minds of his poor ones; here, by the ardor of his love, he inflamed our hearts; here, whoever shall pray devoutly, will obtain whatever he may ask; and whoever shall sin here, will be punished with greater rigor. wherefore, my children, have a great veneration for this place, which is truly the dwelling of the almighty, peculiarly beloved by jesus christ and his blessed mother. employ yourselves here joyfully, and with your whole hearts, in praising and blessing god and his son, our lord jesus christ, in unity with the holy ghost. amen." the day at length arrived which had been fixed by divine providence for terminating and rewarding the labors of this faithful servant of god: it was a saturday, the fourth of october. st. bonaventure who considers him on his death-bed as a work well finished by the chisel of suffering, as a precious jewel cut and polished, to be placed in the sacred edifice of the celestial jerusalem, remarks, that, finding himself near his end, and animating himself with fresh fervor, he stretched himself on the ground. all the brethren were penetrated with grief and shed tears. one of them, whom the holy man called his guardian, knowing by inspiration what he wished for, went quickly to fetch a tunic, a cord, and the other parts of the dress of a friar minor, and brought them to him, saying: "here is what we lend you, as to a poor man; take them out of obedience." he accepted this alms, and was rejoiced that he was faithful to the last to poverty, which he called his dame and his mistress; then raising his hands to heaven, he gave glory to our lord jesus christ, that, being disengaged and free from everything, he was about to go to him. at the beginning of his conversion he stripped himself before the bishop of assisi, in imitation of the poor life of our saviour; and to resemble him more completely in his state of poverty, of nudity, and of suffering on the cross, he stripped himself before his brethren at his death, and chose to leave this world poor as he came into it, or, at least, only in a habit which he had received as an alms: such was his love of poverty. "oh!" exclaims st. bonaventure, "with what truth may it be said that this was verily a christian man, who has rendered himself perfectly conformable to jesus christ while living, or dying, or dead, and who has merited the honor of such a conformity, by the impression of the five wounds!" what is further remarkable is, that they asked him where he desired to be buried, to which he answered: "in the vilest of places, on the infernal hill, on that side where criminals are executed." this place was out of the town of assisi, near the walls, vulgarly called the infernal hill, perhaps on account of its being the place of execution. the servant of god wished to be buried there, in order to be in strict conformity with his divine master, "who chose," says st. jerome, "to be crucified in the usual place of execution, as a criminal among criminals, for the salvation of men, and to be placed in a tomb which was close by." his wish became a prophecy, for, two years after his death, as will be explained hereafter, a church was built in his honor on the infernal hill, when the name was changed into that of the hill of paradise, and the site of the church was so contrived that his body was placed precisely on the spot where the gallows had been formerly erected. seeing his last hour drawing nigh, he summoned all his brethren who were in the convent, and after having addressed some words of consolation to them, to mitigate the grief they felt for his death, he exhorted them to love god as a tender father. then he spoke to them for a long time on the care they should take to persevere in the faith of the church of rome, in poverty and in patience, under the tribulations which awaited them, as well as in successes of their holy undertaking. he made use of the most moving expressions in recommending to them to make progress towards eternal goods, to be armed with vigilance against the dangers of the world, and to walk exactly in the paths of jesus christ; remarking to them that the observance of his gospel was the basis and essence of their institution, and that all their practices had this in view. after the holy man had made known his last wishes, he sent for brother leo, his confessor, and for brother angelo, whom he directed to sing in his presence the canticle of the sun, because death was very near: this is the canticle of which we have spoken, in which he gives glory to god for all his creatures, and also for death. as he was assured by revelation that death would remove him to eternal life, its proximity filled him with joy, which he evidenced by causing the praises of god to be sung. when the canticle was finished, he placed his arms one over the other in the form of a cross,--a saving sign, to which he had been always devoted, as st. bonaventure remarks--and stretching them over his brethren who stood around him, he gave his blessing for the last time, as well to those who were present, as to those who were absent, in the name and by virtue of jesus crucified. he then pronounced the following words with great mildness and suavity: "adieu, my children, i bid you all adieu; i leave you in the fear of the lord, abide ever in that. the time of trial and tribulation approaches; happy those who persevere in the good they have begun. as to me, i go to god with great eagerness, and i recommend you all to his favor" he then called for the book of the gospels, and requested them to read to him the gospel of st. john, at that part where the history of the passion of our blessed saviour begins by these words: "ante diem festum pascha," before the feast of the passover. after this had been read, he began himself to recite, as well as he could, the hundred and forty-first psalm, "voce mea ad dominum clamavi:" "i have cried to thee, o lord, with my voice;" and he continued it to the last verse, "me expectant justi, donec retribuas mihi:" "the just wait for me, until thou reward me." in fine, all the mysteries of grace having been fulfilled in this man, so beloved by god, his very soul, absorbed in divine love, was released from the shackles of his body, and went to repose in the lord. such a death makes good what the holy fathers of the church say, that the perfect christian dies with joy, and with pleasure. there is no one who would not wish for such a death. the most worldly would desire with balaam, that their life should end as that of the just; but the perfection of the just must be imitated to afford any hope of the end being similar: death is only mild and consoling in proportion to the fervor of a christian life. st. bonaventure places on record many proofs which they had of the glory of st. francis at the moment of his death. one of his disciples saw his blessed soul, under the figure of a brilliant star, rise upon a white cloud, above all the others, and go straight to heaven. this marked, says the holy doctor, the splendor of his sublime sanctity, with the plenitude of grace and wisdom, which had rendered him worthy of entering into the regions of light and peace, where, with jesus christ, he enjoys a repose which will be eternal. brother austin, of assisi, provincial of the terra di lavoro, a just and saintly man, who was in the last stage of a severe illness, and had ceased to speak, suddenly exclaimed: "wait for me, my father, wait for me; i will go with you" the brethren, quite astonished, asked him who he was speaking to. "what," said he, "don't you see our father, francis, going up to heaven?" at that very moment his soul separated itself from his body, and followed that of his father. thomas of celano, and bernard of bessa, companions of st. bonaventure, also mentioned that a holy man of their day had a revelation to the effect, that the souls of several friars minors were delivered from the sufferings of purgatory, and were joined with that of the holy patriarch, to enter heaven with him. the bishop of assisi being then on a devotional tour to mount gargano, to visit the church of the archangel michael, francis appeared to him on the night of his death, and said: "i leave the world, and am going up to heaven." the prelate, in the morning, mentioned to those who accompanied him what he had seen; and on his return, having made exact inquiry, he found that the apparition had appeared to him at the very time of the saint's death. the body of st. francis, after his death, was an object worthy of admiration, according to this description of it, given by st. bonaventure on the testimony of those who had seen it, and reported verbally to him all the circumstances, conformably to what had been taken down in writing: on his hands and on his feet black nails were seen as of iron, wonderfully formed of his flesh by divine power, and so attached to his flesh, that, when they were pressed on one side, they protruded farther on the other, as hard excrescences, and all of one piece. nothing now prevented the wound on his side from being seen, which he hid with so much care during his lifetime,--this wound, which had not been made by the hand of man, and which resembled the opening in the side of our blessed saviour, from which the sacrament of our redemption issued, and that of our regeneration. its color was red, and the edges, rounded off, gave it the appearance of a beautiful rose. the flesh of the saint, which was naturally of a brownish color, and which his diseases had rendered tawny, became extraordinarily white. it called to mind the robes whitened in the blood of the lamb, with which the saints are clothed. his limbs were flexible and pliable as those of an infant; evident signs of the innocence and candor of his soul. the whiteness of his skin contrasted with the black nails of his hands and feet, and with the wound in his side, which resembled a fresh-blossomed rose, exhibited a variety of tints which was beautiful and pleasing, and was the admiration of those who saw it. his body, in fine, was the representation of the passion of jesus christ by the wounds imprinted on it, and of the glorious resurrection by the qualifications it had received after death. this marvellous and novel sight mitigated the affliction of his children; it strengthened their faith, inflamed their love, and quite enraptured them; and, although the death of so amiable a father caused them to shed torrents of tears, they, nevertheless, had their hearts filled with joy when they kissed the impressions of the wounds of the great king imprinted on his flesh. as soon as the news of his death was spread, and the circumstances of the stigmata came to be spoken of, the people came in crowds to see them: each person wished to see them with his own eyes, and assure himself of the truth of an event which was the cause of so much joy to the public. a great number of the citizens of assisi were permitted to approach, to see and to kiss the sacred stigmata. one of them named jerome, belonging to the army, a learned and prudent man, whose reputation was very extensive, finding it difficult to give credit to so wonderful a circumstance, examined the wounds more particularly and more minutely than the rest, in presence of the brethren, and of many persons of the town. he felt the feet, the hands, and the wound in the side of the saint's body; he moved the nails, and convinced himself so perfectly of the truth of the fact, that he was afterwards a most zealous advocate and witness to it, and made oath to its truth on the holy evangelists. "it was," st. bonaventure remarks, "a case similar to that of the apostle st. thomas, who, from being incredulous, became a faithful witness after having put his hands into the wounds of the saviour, in order that his faith, preceded by incredulity, should strengthen our faith, and prevent us from becoming incredulous." the brethren, who had been present at the death of the blessed patriarch, passed the remainder of the night in singing the praises of god around the body, with a number of other persons, who had collected there for the purpose, insomuch that it more resembled a feast of celestial spirits than the funeral service of a mortal. the next morning, which was sunday, the holy corpse was carried to assisi on the shoulders of the principal persons of that city, and those of the highest rank among the friars minors; hymns and canticles being sung the whole way, while the concourse followed, carrying in their hands lighted torches, or branches of laurel. the procession passed on to the church of st. damian, where clare and her nuns awaited it, and where it halted for a short time, to afford them the consolation of seeing and kissing the stigmata. in admiring this extraordinary prodigy, and lamenting the death of such a father, they called to mind the promise he had made them during his last illness, that they should again see him before their death. clare endeavored to draw the nail from one of his hands, which, as the head of it was raised above the palm of the hand, she thought she would be able to effect, but she found it impossible. she, therefore, only dipped a piece of linen in the blood which exuded; and she took the measure of the body, by which she had a niche made of similar size, on that side of the choir which the religious occupied, in which the image of the saint was afterwards placed. these pious virgins would have been glad to have detained the body longer, but it was necessary to resume the route to assisi, where he was buried in the church of st. george, with every possible veneration and respect. it was there he had received the first rudiments of education, it was there he had preached for the first time, and there was his first place of repose. brother elias, in his quality of vicar-general, wrote a circular letter on his death, which he sent into all the provinces of the order. the copy which the provincial of france received, was thus directed: "to my well-beloved brother in jesus christ, brother gregory, minister of the brethren who are in france, and to all his brethren, and to ours, brother elias sends greeting." he first expresses his grief in very affecting terms, and in alluding to the loss the order had sustained, he passes a high eulogium on the sanctity of their common father, with many citations from the sacred scriptures, very aptly applied. then, he says, that what must console the children of the blessed patriarch is, that his death opened to him eternal life, and that previously he had pardoned all the offences which he might have sustained from any of them. this article only regarded brother elias and his adherents, for they were the only ones who had caused him any displeasure, and, according to all probability, elias only adverted to it to soften the feelings of many who were irritated with him in consequence of his relaxation. after this preliminary he communicates to them a great cause for rejoicing in the miracle of the stigmata, which he treats as follows: "we had seen our brother and our father, francis, some time before his death as one crucified, having on his body five wounds similar to those of jesus christ, nails of the color of nails of iron, which perforated his hands and feet, his side being laid open as by the wound of a lance, from whence blood often percolated. immediately after his death his face, which was not handsome during his life, became extraordinarily beautiful, white and brilliant, and pleasing to behold; his limbs, which the contraction of the muscles, caused by his great sufferings, had stiffened like to those of a corpse, became pliant and flexible as those of a child: they could be handled and placed in any position which might be wished." he then exhorts them to give glory to god for so great a miracle, and adds: "he who used to console us in our afflictions is no more, he has been taken from us; we are now orphans, and have no longer a father. but, since it is written, that 'to the lord is the poor man left: he will be a helper to the orphan, let us address our prayers to him, my dear brethren, and let us entreat him to give us another chief, who, as a true machabee, shall guide us and lead us to battle." at the close of the letter he ordered prayers for the deceased, saying: "it is not useless to pray for the dead; pray for him, as he requested we should: but at the same time pray that we may obtain from god a participation in his grace. amen." it was signed, "brother elias, a sinner." although elias doubted not that the holy man was in glory, he, nevertheless, prescribed praying for him, not only to comply with the wish of the deceased, and not to forestall the decision of the holy see, but, also, because he bore in mind what st. augustine had said, that the sacrifices and prayers offered for the dead whose life has been irreproachable, are acts of thanksgiving. conclusion we have yet to mention what the holy see did to glorify st. francis and to make his name memorable for all times. pope honorius iii died on the th of march, , to the great grief of the entire church. he dearly loved st. francis and had approved the rule of the friars minor. the morning after his death the cardinals assembled and elected cardinal ugolini as his successor, who took unto himself the name of gregory ix. cardinal ugolini was the intimate friend of francis, the protector of his order and the founder of several franciscan convents; as was recorded above, st. francis predicted his pontificate. a riot at rome shortly after caused the holy father to flee to rieti, he then went to spoleto, and from thence to assisi. at assisi he was greeted with the greatest enthusiasm by the people. his deep piety prompted him to visit the grave of our saint, where he spent a long time in prayer. at the general chapter held at rome, june , , in which brother elias was re-elected, his holiness was petitioned by all present to canonize francis whom god already made illustrious by many miracles. now a favorable opportunity presented itself to pay special heed to this petition. he caused a rigorous examination to be made of all the miracles attributed to the intercession of the saint after his death. this was not a difficult matter for there were a great number of witnesses in the city and neighboring places. in the meanwhile the holy father went to perugia to attend to some affairs of state. when the validity of the proofs regarding the miracles and virtues of st. francis could in no way be questioned, gregory returned to assisi. the canonization took place with the greatest solemnity on sunday july th, in the church of st. george, where the body of the saint reposed. amidst an immense assembly of cardinals, bishops, priests, clerics, members of the franciscan orders, knights, lords, and dignitaries of the, provinces and a vast multitude of people the sovereign pontiff pronounced from his throne, the following solemn words: "to the glory of the most high god, father, son, and holy ghost, the glorious virgin mary, the blessed apostles peter and paul, and to the honor of the whole roman church, we have resolved, in concert with our brethren and other prelates, to inscribe in the catalogue of the saints, the blessed father francis, whom god has glorified in heaven, and whom we venerate on earth. his feast shall be celebrated on the day of his death." at once the cardinals intoned the te deum, the people responded by their cries and shouts of joy. thereupon prayers of thanksgiving were recited and then the august pontiff celebrated holy mass. it was a day of grace, of exultation and triumph for assisi, for the franciscan family and for the whole church. thus was st. francis canonized but a few years after his death. the humble saint had asked to be interred on the "infernal hill," the hill on which criminals were buried. up to the present his desire could not be fulfilled. the city of assisi waited to make that place of ignominy a worthy abode for the remains of its most saintly and illustrious citizen. a magnificent double-church was erected on the spot. the sovereign pontiff declared that henceforth the place shall be called "hill of paradise" and later on laid the corner-stone for the new edifice. the lower church was completed in . the elaborate portal is a plan of baccio pontelli. the stained glass windows by bonino, a native of assisi, render a soft and mellow harmony of light no less charming than that of the mosaic interior of san marco, venice. famous frescoes which influenced all the great movements of art that followed, cover the walls of the church. those in the sanctuary by giotto are particularly fine. they represent st. francis espousing humility, charity, and poverty. the gold and blue of the backgrounds upon which the numerous scenes are painted, harmonize beautifully in the general color scheme of the sacred edifice. in the fourteenth century nine chapels were added along the walls of the lower church, mostly memorial chapels of cardinals and bishops. two years after the construction of the lower church with its vaulted top, the building of the upper church began. the gothic form of architecture was chosen for the building, so that the high and pointed arches be emblematic of the lofty spirit of st. francis, and of the towering strength of his followers, whose object it is to raise the spirit of men to a higher standard of religion and devotion. after its completion in the year pope innocent iv came in person to assisi and consecrated the upper and lower church. at the same time the holy father, who resided in the monastery at assisi with the franciscan fathers for five months, solemnly canonized the bishop and martyr stanislaus of cracow. the upper church again afforded the genius of artists ample opportunity to blossom forth. zimabue enriched the sanctuary with brilliant frescoes from the life of the blessed virgin mary whom st. francis had chosen to be the patroness and protectress of his three orders for all future times. the choir-picture, the assumption of the virgin, is the finest of the series. in the apse are frescoes of st. peter and st. paul to whose tomb (at rome) st. francis made a pilgrimage to ask for grace and light at the beginning of his conversion. other frescoes of zimabue, also in the apse of the church, represent various passages of the apocalypse, relative to the rejuvenation of the church; st. francis was called and appointed by god to restore the church which was falling into ruins. along the lower wall-spaces of the nave are twenty-eight large frescoes from the life of st. francis by giotto, taddio, gaddi and giunto pisano; the upper spaces have representations of the old and new testament by pietro cavallini and his school. these upper paintings are now in ruins, but even in their ruins they are precious pearls of mediaeval art. the stained glass windows are of such exceptional beauty and artistic correctness that their equal cannot be found in all italy. speaking of the church of st. francis at assisi, a traveller says in substance as follows: in its tremendous proportions the gigantic church of st. francis can only be compared to the pyramids of egypt; and both are symbolic of their times. the pyramids were erected by the iron will and the cruel might of the pharaohs, the blood of nations stain every stone and they are bedewed with many tears. the church of st. francis was built by the self-sacrificing love and heartfelt gratitude of nations. its stones are worn by the footsteps and the tears of millions and millions of people, who came there, perhaps sad and weary, but returned with the love and the peace of the saint in their heart. when the lower church was completed ( ), the venerable remains of st. francis were translated to their new resting-place. such numbers were present at this translation, that many had to sleep out under tents during the night, the walls of assisi not being able to contain so vast a multitude. the people of assisi, having observed a commotion in the crowd, began to fear that an attempt was being made to deprive them of their sacred treasure: accordingly they rushed to the bier, took possession of the saint's body, entered the church, locked the doors, and interred the body, without allowing any of the clergy, religious, or people to enter. in consequence of this event, an impenetrable veil of secrecy long hung over the place where the body had been laid. in , pope pius vii gave permission to the general of the conventual minors to make researches under the high altar. many previous researches had been made; they grew to such gigantic proportions that the foundations of the massive structure were partly undermined. to prevent the ruin of the basilica at assisi, the holy see finally forbade all further researches without the special consent of the sovereign pontiff. when pope pius vii gave the necessary permission, the researches were again taken up, but very carefully and in great secrecy. the workmen were employed for fifty-two nights in hard labor. at length, after having broken through rocks and massive walls, an iron grating was discovered, beneath which was a skeleton in a stone coffin, which when opened, exhaled the most fragrant odor. the holy father deputed the bishops of assisi, nocera, spoleto, perugia, and foligno, to make a juridical examination, to certify the authenticity of the body. then, in accordance with a decree of the council of trent, he named a commission of cardinals and theologians, and, all being settled, on the th of december, , he declared in a brief that "this body is verily the body of saint francis of assisi, founder of the order of friars minor." the sacred body of st. francis now lies beneath the main altar of the lower church, mentioned before, in an exquisitely beautiful little chapel hewn out of the solid rock. the remains repose in their original sarcophagus, which is bound by broad girders of steel. seven hundred years have elapsed since the death of this humble servant of god. his memory has outlived all the storms that have agitated the world. the good seed that he sowed is still bringing forth fruit a hundredfold. like the apostles of old, he labored in the vineyard of the lord, and opened up to others, heavenly treasures of untold value. yet more, in the person of st. francis, jesus of nazareth lived again for the instruction and edification of the whole world, as he had never done in any individual, since the great apostle of the gentiles. at the word of st. francis a revival of primitive christianity sprang into existence at a time when all civilization seemed unhinged on account of the almost universal decay in morals. he taught men afresh that the commands of jesus christ could be literally obeyed and that the sermon on the mount was as applicable to the men of the middle and all succeeding ages as to the first age of christian history. this new abraham begot through the gospel the largest family of christ's followers and of missionaries the catholic church has ever produced. it is well known that the history of the church from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century was largely the history of the rise and growth of franciscanism in every part of europe. to-day, after seven centuries have elapsed, we find no symptoms of decay in the great franciscan family. the priests and laybrothers of the first order are to be found laboring assiduously in every country. in efficiency and number their active missionaries are second to none. they are storming the strongholds of satan from one end of the world to the other. the second order stands before us as of old, a beautiful lily in the sanctuary of god. the holy virgins, of the second order, called "poor clares," seek voluntary oblivion and by their pure and pious life of the greatest austerity, of seclusion, silence, penance and prayer, daily open the floodgates of god's graces to mankind. the wonderful and healthy growth of the third order, especially since the great encyclical on st. francis and on the third order by pope leo xiii ( ), need not be mentioned; it is a fact known to all. since the work of the seraphic saint is so prosperous at present, we need not doubt about the future. as we have previously seen god himself revealed to st. francis that his institution shall remain till the end of times. thus the most high glorified and rewarded the poor, humble man of assisi, "the greatest of sinners," as he loved to call himself. st. francis now reigns in heaven, brilliant as the morning star, and showers his blessings upon his many children. let us praise god for the grace and glory he gave his humble servant and let us deeply impress upon our mind the words of the holy ghost: "god resists the proud, but gives his graces to the humble." "he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." "st. francis sealed with the character of jesus" the eminent perfection of st. francis was grounded on a tender and fervent devotion to jesus christ crucified. this adorable object had a powerful attraction for his heart, was the source of all the graces he received, and the model of all the virtues he practised. from the sufferings of our saviour he made for himself, as st. bernard had done, a nosegay of myrrh, which he always carried in his bosom; he considered attentively the sufferings of his beloved, he suffered them himself, and they called forth his sighs and his tears; it was his wish that the fire of this love might transform him entirely into him who had borne them. the poverty of the son of god, in his birth, during his life, and at his death, made such impression on the heart of francis, that he embraced this virtue with inexpressible ardor. seeing that it was rejected by the world, and looking upon it as the pearl of the gospel, to acquire it, he abandoned father, mother, and all that he had. no person ever sought after riches with so much avidity, and no one ever guarded his treasure with so much care. he never wore, until his death, anything but a worthless tunic, and he refused himself everything but what was absolutely necessary. he would yield to no one in poverty, although he considered himself the most abject of all. if he saw any one worse dressed than he was, he considered it as a reproach to himself. one day, meeting a poor man who was almost naked, he said to his companion with a sigh: "there is a poor man who shames us. we have chosen poverty for our greatest riches, and in him you see it shine far more than in us." for his nourishment, he greatly preferred what he solicited for the love of god from door to door, to what was offered to him. he frequently considered within himself, and it brought tears into his eyes, how poor our saviour and his blessed mother had been in this world, and the reflection induced him to live in greater poverty. as to the cells, he always chose the smallest. one of his secular friends having had one built, which was only made of wood, though pretty neat, in the hermitage of sarthiano, he found it too fine, and said he would not enter it a second time unless it was put into a state of poverty; so that, in order to induce him to return, it was necessary to cover it roughly with branches of trees, both without and within. he left it afterwards because one of his companions had said to him, "father, i am come to look for you in your cell." "i will not occupy it any longer," he replied, "because you consider it mine in calling it my cell: another may live in it, to whom it will not be appropriated." this is what his companions tell us on the subject:--"we have often heard him say, we, who have lived with him: 'i will not have as mine either dwelling-place, or any other thing, for our master has said: "the foxes have lairs, and the birds of the air, nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head."'" he was also accustomed to say: "when our lord went to fast in the desert, where he remained forty days and forty nights, he had no cell prepared for him, nor any other covering; it was only in some crevice of the mountain that he took repose." the same authors add, that, in order to imitate jesus christ perfectly, francis desired to have neither convent nor cell which could be called his. and, moreover, if sometimes, on arriving, he pointed out to his brethren the cell which he proposed to occupy, he checked himself immediately, as having shown too much solicitude, and went into another, which had not been prepared for him. shall, then, the children of the patriarch of the poor be censured when they imitate this tenderness of conscience; and when, to show their aversion to the possession of property, they call even the things which are most essential for them to have the use of, by terms which show that they do not even hold them in common, and that they have nothing which is their own? although the servant of god possessed every virtue in a very high degree, yet it was remarked that the virtue of poverty was the one which was above all the others; and this it pleased the almighty to make known by an admirable vision. when the saint was going to sienna, three very poor women, who resembled each other both in size and countenance, and appeared to be of the same age, presented themselves before him, and greeted him in these words: "may the lady poverty be welcome!" this salutation filled him with joy, because nothing was more grateful to him in greeting him than to speak of poverty, which was so dear to him. the vision immediately vanished, and his companions, who had seen it, had no doubt that there was something mysterious in it; that god meant thereby to discover to them something which related to their father.--"in fact," says st. bonaventure, "these three women, who were so like to each other, were not bad representations of chastity, obedience, and poverty, which constitute the beauty of evangelical perfection, and were the very eminent characteristics of the saintly man; yet the expressions which these women made use of in greeting him, showed that he had chosen poverty as his special prerogative, and the principal object of his glory; and, indeed, he was in the habit of calling it sometimes his lady, sometimes his mother, and sometimes his spouse or his queen." it is not possible to record in this place all the praise which the holy founder gave to this evangelical virtue. he called it the queen, not only because it shone with splendor in jesus christ, the king of kings, and in his blessed mother, but because it is elevated above all earthly things, which it tramples under foot. "know," he used to say to his brethren, "that poverty is the hidden treasure of the gospel, the basis on which an order rests the special path to salvation, the support of humility, the mother of self-renunciation, the principle of obedience, the death of self-love, the destruction of vanity and cupidity, the rod of perfection, the fruits of which are abundant, though hidden. it is a virtue descended from heaven which acts within us, and enables us to despise everything which is despicable; it subverts all the obstacles which prevent the soul from perfectly uniting itself to god by humility and charity; it causes those by whom it is beloved to become active as pure spirits, and enables them to take their flight towards heaven, to converse with angels, though still living on earth. it is so excellent and so divine a virtue, that vile and abject vases such as we are, are not worthy of containing it." in order to obtain the grace of poverty, he often recited the following prayer to jesus christ: "o lord jesus! point out to me the ways of poverty, which are so dear to thee. have pity on me, for i love it with such intensity that i can find no repose without it, and thou knowest that it is thou who gavest me this ardent love. it is rejected, despised, and hated by the world, although it is a dame and a queen, and thou hast had the goodness to come down from heaven to make poverty thy spouse, and to have from her, by her, and in her, perfect children. my jesus, who chosest to be extremely poor! the favor which i ask of thee is, to give me the privilege of poverty; i ardently desire to be enriched by this treasure; i entreat of thee that it may be mine, and of those who belong to me, and that we may never possess anything of our own under heaven for the glory of thy name, and that we may exist, during this miserable life, on those things only which are given to us, and that we be very sparing in the use we shall make even of these. amen." this friend of poverty did not confine it to the repudiation of all external things: he carried its perfection to the most elevated spiritual point. "he who aspires to its attainment," he said, "must renounce not only all worldly prudence, but in some degree all learning and science, so that, being stripped of all sorts of goods, he may place himself under cover of the protection of the most high, think only of his justice, and cast himself into the arms of the crucified. for it is not to renounce the world entirely, if any attachment to its lights, and to one's own feelings, remains in the secret recesses of the heart." he did not assert that, in order to arrive at the perfection of poverty, it was necessary to be without learning, but he required that learning should not be considered by the possessor as an interior property, from which self-love should be fed; that there should not be that secret attachment to mental illumination, which is the primary source of error, and the basis of the obstinacy of heretics; that all of knowledge should "be referred to god, and that we should in some sense strip ourselves of it to acquire the perception of god alone, and of his holy law. st. hilary said, speaking in the same sense, that we must always bear in mind that we are men, that we have nothing of our own, not even the use of our senses and faculties; that these come from god, and that we must only use them as things which are in a continual dependence on his will. this is an important instruction for the consideration of the learned." the lively affection which st. francis bore for the crucified jesus, from the moment of his conversion, rendered him very austere towards himself. not only could he not suffer that the tunic which he wore should have anything soft in it, but he chose that it should be rough and harsh; when he found that it had become too soft, he put knotted cords on the inside to counteract the softness. it was usually on the bare ground that he laid his body down,--that body which was worn out by fatigue; sometimes he slept, sitting with his head resting on a stone or piece of wood. as to food, he scarcely took what was absolutely necessary for his nourishment. when in health, he seldom permitted anything to be put before him which was cooked, and then he either strewed ashes upon it, or added water to it, to take away the taste. pure water was his only beverage, and then he drank so little that it was insufficient for quenching his thirst. besides the lent kept by all christians, he kept eight others in the course of the year. the first, of forty days, from the day after the epiphany, in memory of our lord's fast in the desert, after he had been baptized by john, which took place on the sixth day of january, according to the old tradition of the church. the second was from the wednesday in easter week, to whit-sunday, to prepare himself for receiving the holy ghost. the third, from the day after the festival of pentecost to the feast of ss. peter and paul, in honor of these blessed apostles. the fourth, from the day after their festival to the assumption, in honor of the blessed virgin. the fifth in honor of st. michael, from the assumption to the feast of that angel. the sixth, from that feast is the first of november, in honor of all the saints. the seventh, from all-souls to christmas, to prepare himself to celebrate the birth of christ. the eighth, from the feast of st. stephen to the epiphany, in honor of the three kings. thus was his life a perpetual fast. when he went abroad he ate whatsoever was put before him, not only to observe the direction of the gospel, but in order to gain worldlings to jesus christ, by conforming to their ways; but when in the convent, he resumed his habits of abstinence, and this mode of life was very edifying to laymen. the more he advanced towards perfection, the more he mortified himself. we cannot form a more correct opinion of the evangelical hatred he bore his body, than by noticing the terms he made use of to express it. after having finished complin, and spent a considerable time in prayer, in a deserted church, in which he passed the night, he wished to take some rest. as the evil spirits prevented him from so doing, by suggestions which frightened him, and made him tremble, he mustered courage, rose, made the sign of the cross, and said in a loud voice: "devils, i declare to you from almighty god, that you may use against me all the power given to you by my lord jesus christ, and do all the harm you can to my body. i am ready to suffer everything, and assuredly you will oblige me greatly, for this body is a great burden to me; it is the greatest enemy i have, the most wicked, and the most crafty; and you will revenge me by so doing." he exhorted his religious to austerity in their food, in their clothing, and in everything else. for he was convinced, as was st. augustine, that it is difficult to satisfy the demands of the body, without in some degree sacrificing to sensuality; and he used to say, "our saviour praised st. john the baptist for his having clothed himself coarsely. according to the words 'behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings,' soft garments must not be found in the huts of the poor. i know by experience that the devils fly from those who lead an austere life; and st. paul teaches us, that they who are christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences." we remember that he knew how to temper what seemed to be excessive in the mortifications of his brethren. francis taught persons to flee from idleness. "i desire," he said, "that my brethren may work and be occupied. he who desires to live by the labor of others, without doing anything, deserves to be nicknamed brother _fly_; because, doing nothing that is worth anything, and spoiling what is good, he becomes odious and despicable to all the world." if he came upon any one wandering about, and without occupation, he applied to him these words of the apocalypse: "because thou art lukewarm, i will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." his example was an excellent lesson for not losing time, and fostering the idleness of the flesh; he employed himself always holily, and he called his body brother ass, which required to be well worked, to be severely beaten, and to be badly fed. silence was not considered by him to be a small virtue; he considered it as a guard to the purity of the heart, according to the maxim of wisdom: "life and death are in the power of the tongue;" by which he understood the intemperance of speech, as well as that of taste. but he principally wished his brethren to become exact in keeping evangelical silence, which consists in abstaining from all idle conversation, of which an account must be rendered at the day of judgment, and he severely reprimanded those who were in the habit of saying useless things. in fine, his instruction was, that they should endeavor to destroy all vice, and to mortify the passions; and that, in order to succeed in this endeavor, every thing should be cut off which could serve as an attraction, and, therefore, that the exterior senses by which death enters into the soul, should be continually mortified. as soon as he felt the smallest temptation, or if he only foresaw it, he took every precaution for resisting it. at the beginning of his conversion he frequently threw himself in the depth of winter, into freezing water, in order to subdue his domestic enemy, and to preserve his robe of innocence without stain, asserting that it is far less painful to a spiritual man to suffer the rigor of the severest cold, than to feel interiorly the slightest attack upon his purity. we have seen, in his life, that he threw himself into the midst of thorns, to drive away the tempter who wanted to induce him to moderate his watchings and his prayers. one of his actions, the circumstances of which are thus related by st. bonaventure, shows how great the purity of his heart was, and with what force he resisted the impure spirit. one night, while he was at prayer in his cell, at the hermitage of sarthiano, he heard himself called three times by his name. after he had answered, a voice said to him: "there is no sinner in the world whom god does not pardon if he be converted; but whoever kills himself by too rigorous a penance, will never find mercy." francis was made aware by a revelation that these deceitful words emanated from the old enemy, who wished to induce him to relax in his austerities, and he soon had sensible proof of it, for, "he who by his breath sets fire to coals," as holy job says, "tempted him strongly to sin against purity." as soon as he became aware of it, he inflicted a severe discipline on himself, saying to his body: "o brother ass! this is what suits you, this is the way in which you should be chastised. the tunic you wear is that of religion, and is a mark of its holiness. it is not permitted to one who is impure to wear it: that would be a theft." as the devil represented to him probably that he might marry and have children, and have servants to wait upon him, he responded to that by turning his own body into derision, and treating it cruelly. with admirable fervor he burst from his cell, and threw himself upon a large mound of snow; he made seven balls of it with his hands, and then said to himself: "the largest of these snowballs is thy wife, four others are thy two sons and two daughters, and the two last are thy man and thy maid-servants. i must think of clothing them, for they are perishing with cold." then he added: "if this solicitude is overpowering, think hereafter of nothing else than of serving god fervently." at this the tempter fled, and the saint returned victoriously to his cell. he never after had a similar temptation. one of his brethren, who was at prayer in the garden, saw by the light of the moon what was going on, and francis, being aware of it, could not avoid explaining to him the whole temptation: "but," said he, "i forbid you strictly from saying a word on the subject during my lifetime." it was only known after his death. those who know how far the scrupulousness of chaste souls will carry them, will not feel surprised that, after the example of many other saints, he had put in practice such severe mortification, to shield himself from the slightest taint on his purity. his lively and agreeable turn of mind are apparent in the way in which he taunted his body when suffering from extreme cold; this also shows how much self-possession he had under the severest trials, and by what sentiment he was actuated in his penances. st. bonaventure says that, as a skilful architect, he laid down humility for the foundation-stone of his spiritual edifice, and that it was from jesus christ that he had acquired this wisdom. the foundation was so solid that humility became natural to him, as well as poverty, and thus it is justly that he is called the humble st. francis. he was in the eyes of all a mirror of holiness, but in his own eyes he was but a sinner; on all occasions he sought to vilify himself, not only in his own mind, but in that of others. upon one occasion brother pacificus, while praying with him in a church, was raised in an ecstasy, and saw several thrones in the heavens, among which there was one more splendid than the rest, ornamented with precious stones. as he was pondering for whom this magnificent seat could be destined, a voice said to him: "this was the seat of an angel, and now it is reserved for the humble francis." some short time after, when conversing with the saint, he led to the topic of the knowledge of one's self, and he asked him what idea he had of himself, upon which st. francis answered quickly: "i consider myself the greatest of sinners." pacificus maintained that he could not conscientiously either say so or think so. "i am convinced," replied francis, "that, if the most criminal of men had experienced the great mercies i have received from jesus christ, he would be much more grateful for them than i am." this beautiful effusion confirmed pacificus in the opinion he had entertained, that the vision he had seen was a true vision; and it is quite in accordance with the maxim of the gospel that, "whosoever shall exalt himself, shall be humbled; and that he that shall humble himself, shall be exalted." it is humility that raises men to those places from whence pride cast down the fallen angels. we have seen the extraordinary things which francis did in order to humble himself; from the same motive he felt no difficulty in making public the defects he thought he discovered in himself. if he found himself attacked by any temptation to pride, vain-glory, or any other sin, he never failed communicating it to those who were present, whether they were religious or seculars. one day when he was followed by a great concourse of people, he gave his cloak to a poor woman who had asked him for an alms, and some minutes after he turned round to the crowd and told them in a loud voice that he had sinned from vainglory in so doing. we may imagine that his humility was at that moment very great, which prevented him from distinguishing between voluntary consent and the feeling over which we have no control. he took great care not to do anything in private which he should have had any hesitation in doing in public, and which was not in conformity with the opinion people had of his sanctity. his illness rendered it necessary that he should eat meat in the lent he kept before christmas, but this relaxation consisted only in the use of lard; yet he, nevertheless, accused himself of it in public, as an act of gluttony. his companions have recorded what he said: "i wish to live in hermitages and in other solitary places, as if i was seen by all the world; for, if people have a great opinion of me, and i were not to live as they think i do, i should be guilty of scandalous hypocrisy." the vicar of his convent suggested that he should permit his tunic to be lined with fox-skins, to keep his chest warm, which his disorder had greatly weakened. "i consent to this," he replied, "provided you put a similar set of skins outside, that the world may know the relief which is inside also." this condition put a stop to the proposition. praise mortified him, and he liked that people should blame him, and he rejoiced in being despised. when he heard people express by acclamation the merits of his sanctity, he made some of the brethren say to him, "you are a vulgar man, ignorant and useless in the world, a nobody;" and when he answered, with pleasure depicted on his countenance, "may the lord bless you, my dear child, what you say is quite true, and is exactly what the son of peter bernardo deserves to hear." to those who called him a saint he used to say: "do not praise me; i have no assurance that i shall not sin; a person must never be praised whose end cannot be known." and he addressed the following words to himself: "francis, if the most high had bestowed so many favors on a thief as he has on you, he would be much more grateful than you are." one day when great honors were paid him, his companion remarking that he received them without showing any reluctance, said: "father, do you not see what they are doing in your honor? and far from refusing to receive the applause manifested in your regard, as christian humility requires, you seem to receive them with complacency. is there anything which a servant of the lord should more sedulously avoid?" this is the reply which the holy man made him: "brother, although it may appear to you that they are paying me great honors, nevertheless, know that i consider them as little or nothing in comparison to those which ought to be paid me." his companion was not only surprised, but almost scandalized, on hearing him utter such sentiments; but, not to expose his follower, francis added: "now be attentive to this, and understand it properly. i refer to god all the honor which is paid me, i attribute nothing to myself; on the contrary, i look upon myself as dirt by my baseness. i am as those figures of wood or stone for which respect is had. all goes back to what they represent. now, when men know and honor god in his creatures, as they do in me, who am the vilest of all, it is no small profit to their souls." this is the magnanimous humility of which st. thomas speaks, by which a man honors in himself the great gifts of god, permits them to be there honored, and practises great virtues to render himself more worthy to receive new ones, while he shrinks from the contemplation of his own merits. such was the humble francis, in permitting, for the glory of god, and the salvation of his neighbor, that the supernatural gifts which had been imparted to him, should be honored in his person, while he himself only considered his own nothingness; and afterwards he retired into solitary places, where he passed whole nights in meditating upon this nothingness, and on the infinite mercy of god, which had loaded him with graces. being one day with brother leo in one of these solitudes, and being without the books necessary for saying the divine office, he invented a sort of humiliating psalmody for glorifying god during the night. "my dear brother," he said to leo, "we must not let this time, which is consecrated to god, pass without praising his holy name, and confessing our own misery. this is the verse which i will say: 'o brother francis! you have committed so many sins in this world, that you have deserved to be plunged into hell.' and you, brother leo, your response will be, 'it is true; you deserve to be in the bottom of hell.'" leo promised, however repugnant he felt, to answer as his father desired; but, instead of that, he said: "brother francis, god will do so much good through your means, that you will be called into paradise." the father said to him, with warmth: "you don't answer as you ought. here is another verse: 'brother francis, you have offended god by so many bad deeds, that you deserve all his maledictions.' answer to that: 'you deserve to be among the number of the cursed.'" leo promised again; but when the saint had said his verse, striking his breast, and shedding abundance of tears, leo pronounced these words: "brother francis, god will render you such, that, among those who are blessed, you will receive a peculiar blessing." "why don't you answer as i desire you?" said francis, surprised. "i command you, under obedience, to repeat the words which i am going to give you. i shall say: 'o brother francis, miserable man, after so many crimes committed against the father of mercies, and the god of all consolation, do you think he will have any pity on me? in truth you are undeserving of pardon.' brother leo, answer immediately: 'you deserve no mercy.'" leo, however, said: "god, our father, whose mercy infinitely surpasses our sins, will pardon you all your sins, and will load you with his favors." then francis said somewhat angrily: "why have you dared to transgress the rule of obedience, and to answer so often differently to what i desired?" leo excused himself most respectfully, saying: "my very dear father, god is my witness that i had each time intended to repeat the words which you had directed me, but he put into my mouth the words i uttered, and caused me to speak, notwithstanding my resolution, according to his good pleasure." the humble servant of jesus christ admired this disposition of the lord; but persisting, nevertheless, in his intention of humbling himself, he entreated brother leo to repeat, at least once, the following words, which he pronounced with many sighs: "oh brother francis, miserable little man! do you think that god will have mercy on you, after so many crimes which you have committed?" "yes, my father," replied leo, "god, your saviour, will have mercy on you, and will grant you great favors. he will exalt you, and glorify you eternally, because he who shall humble himself shall be exalted. nevertheless, pardon me for not having said what you desired. it is not i who speak, it is god who speaks in me." finally francis bowed to what leo communicated to him, who only disobeyed him by an impulse of the holy ghost; and they conversed during the remainder of the night on the great mercy of god to sinners. it has been already remarked, with st. bonaventure, that st. francis had given to his brethren the name of minors, and to their superiors that of ministers, in order that their very name should cause them to be humble. these are the maxims by which he used to impress this upon them:--"the son of god debased himself in coming from the bosom of his father to us, to teach us humility by his example and by his word, as our lord and master." "what is exalted in the eyes of man is an abomination before god." "man is nothing but what he is before god, and is nothing more. it is folly to feel glorified by the applause of man; it is better to be blamed than praised, for blame induces the person to correct himself, while praise leads to his fall. no man should pride himself for doing those things which a sinner may do as well as he. a sinner may fast, pray, weep, macerate his body, but what he cannot do, as long as he is a sinner, is to be faithful to his god. now, this is what we may glory in, to render to god the glory which is due to him, to serve him faithfully, and to return with like fidelity all that he has given. happy the servant who finds himself as humble amidst his brethren, inferiors like himself, as in presence of his superiors! happy the servant who does not believe himself better when men load him with praises, than when he appears in their eyes simple, vile, abject and despicable! happy the servant who bears reprimanding with meekness, who acknowledges his fault with humility, and voluntarily punishes it; who is sufficiently humble to receive a reprimand without offering an excuse. happy the religious who has not been desirous of the elevation he has attained, and who always wishes to be at the feet of the others! woe to the religious who has been raised by the rest to an honorable position, and who has not the inclination to descend from it." the example of jesus christ, who "was obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross," inspired st. francis with great love for obedience. although he was appointed superior by order of god and of the pope, he was always desirous of obeying rather than commanding. in his travels, he promised obedience to him who accompanied him, and he rigidly kept that promise. one day he communicated the following in confidence to his companions: "among all the graces which i have received from the bounty of god, this is one, that, if they were to appoint a novice of an hour's standing to be my guardian, i would obey him as implicitly as if he was the oldest and the most serious of our brethren." he was not satisfied with having renounced being general of the order, to obey the vicar-general; he asked brother elias, who filled that position to give him a guardian, on whose will he should depend in all things. brother angelo of rieti was given to him, and he obeyed him with entire submission. the instructions he gave his brethren on the subject of obedience contained all the perfection which could be given them: st. to renounce their own will, and to look upon it as the forbidden fruit, which our first parents could not eat of without being guilty. d. to abandon themselves wholly to their superior, so that they should neither do nor say anything which they know he would not approve of; and that they should do what he wishes the moment he has spoken, without waiting for his speaking a second time. d. not to examine whether what is ordered is difficult or impossible, for, said st. francis: "when i order anything which is above your strength, holy obedience will enable you to effect it." th. to submit their lights to those of the superior, not with a view of obeying him in anything manifestly contrary to salvation, but to act upon his views, although they may think their own better and more useful. th. not to consider the man, nor his qualifications, in the obedience they bow to, but the authority he has, the place he fills, and the greatness of him for whose love they are subject to man. this last point is the greatest sacrifice of a religious life; but a necessary sacrifice, one which is just, and worthy of god, and the most certain proof that our obedience is grounded on our love for god. it is not difficult to follow the dictates of a superior of acknowledged talent and merit; the hardship is to submit with humility, without remonstrance or murmur, to one who has not these qualifications. this also it is which enhances in the eyes of god the value of religious obedience; it may then be considered as a sort of martyrdom of the mind, as well as that of the body, which will receive its crown in heaven. nevertheless, it is requisite to be cautious, lest antipathy or some other motive, and the natural revolt of the human heart against authority, should cause a superior to appear contemptible, who really is not so. finally, the religious are highly interested in practicing holy obedience, whoever may be the superior; it is, as st. francis remarks, so abundant in fruits, that such as bend to the yoke pass not a moment of their lives without some spiritual profit: it increases virtue, and procures peace to the soul. he was asked one day, who was to be considered to be truly obedient, and he instanced a dead body. "take," said he, "a dead body, and place it where you please; you will see that it shows no repugnance at its removal, it utters no complaint at its situation, nor of dissatisfaction at being left where it is. if you put it in an honorable place, its eyes will remain closed, it will not raise them. if you clothe it in purple, it will only be paler than before. that is true obedience; it asks no reason as to why it is put in motion, it is indifferent as to where it is placed, and does not require to be removed.--if a minor is raised to the dignity of superior, he remains equally humble; the more he is honored, the more does he think himself unworthy of it. i have often," he said, "seen a blind man led by a little dog, the man went wherever his guide took him, in good roads and in bad. this is another resemblance of one who is perfectly obedient; he should shut his eyes, and be blind to the commands of his superior, think of nothing but submitting immediately to him, without stopping to examine whether the thing be difficult or not, only keeping in view the authority of him who gives the order, and the merit of obedience." disobedience is insupportable; he considered it as the unfortunate offspring of pride, which is the source of all evils, and of which he had great horror. one day while praying in his cell, and meditating between god and his brethren, he saw in spirit one of them who refused to perform the penance imposed on him in chapter by the vicar-general, and excusing himself as to the fault of which he had been accused. he called his companion, and said: "i saw on the shoulders of this insubordinate brother the devil, who was wringing his neck, and leading him as by a bridle. i prayed for him, and the devil, abashed, loosed his hold immediately. go to him, and tell him to bend immediately to the yoke of obedience," in fact, the brother did submit as soon as he was told this, and threw himself humbly at the feet of his superior. another, who had erred in some way against obedience, was brought to francis, that he might correct him; but he appeared so penitent, that the saint, who liked the humility of repentance, felt himself inclined to pardon the fault. nevertheless, lest the facility of pardon should be abused, and to show what chastisement disobedience deserves, he ordered his cowl to be taken from him, and thrown into the fire. some minutes after, he desired it to be taken out of the fire, and to be returned to him, when it was found that the fire had not injured it in the least; "god having shown by his miracle," st. bonaventure observes, "the power he gave to his servant, and how agreeable to him humble repentance is." the conduct of the holy founder was more severe to one of his brethren, who was obstinately disobedient. he desired the others to put him into a pit, and to fill it up with earth, in order to bury him alive; when they had filled it up to his chin he said:--"brother, are you dead?" the religious, absorbed in grief, replied: "yes, father, and i ought to die in reality for my sin." francis, moved by compassion, had him dug out, saying: "come forth from thence, if you are truly dead, as a good religious ought to be, to the world and its concupiscences. obey the smallest sign of the will of your superiors, and make no more resistance to their orders than a dead body could do. i wish for followers, not living, but those who are dead." he once called brother juniper to employ him a little while, and this brother not having immediately obeyed, because he was busy in planting a juniper tree, he cursed the tree that it should never grow, and it remained always in a dwarf state. the fathers of the desert were similarly exact in their attention to obedience, insomuch as to leave a letter unfinished when they had to attend to the orders of a superior. the virtues of st. francis, which we have recorded, and those which we have yet to narrate, were cultivated by the exercise of prayer. he had the gift as soon as he was called to the service of god; and he followed it up so faithfully, that he consecrated to it his heart, his body, all his actions, and all his time. in-doors, or out of doors, walking or seated, working or resting, his mind was always raised to heaven; he seemed to live with the angels. as he was always diffident of himself, he had recourse to prayer, and consulted the almighty, with perfect confidence in his goodness, in all that he had to do. although he could pray in any place he might happen to be in, nevertheless, he found solitary spots best adapted for recollection; he sought them out, and often retired to them. this shows us why he made so many houses of his order, where there had previously been hermitages only. careful in attending to the interior calls of the holy spirit, if he perceived one coming on, he let his companions go forward, and stopped, not to receive it in vain, and to enjoy it to its full extent. when he prayed in community, he avoided all exterior signs, which might discover the secret dispositions of his mind, because he loved secrecy. he did not find the precaution difficult, because he was wholly absorbed in his interior, and united himself so intimately to god, that he was almost without exterior motion. if it happened that he was surprised by a visit from heaven in the presence of his brethren, he had always something ready to propose to them, to take off their attention. when he returned from prayer, in which he had been marvellously transformed, he strove to conform himself to his brethren, lest what they might perceive might draw from them applause, which would deprive him of his reward by inspiring him with vanity. but in the solitudes he was under no restraint, and gave his heart entire liberty. the woods resounded with his sacred sighs and laments, the earth was moistened with his tears, and he struck his breast with violence. sometimes he addressed himself to god as to his sovereign lord; sometimes he spoke to him as to his judge; sometimes he prayed to him as to his father; and at other times, he conversed with him as a friend converses with his friend. he solicited the pardon of sinners with loud and energetic exclamations; and he expressed his horror at the passion of jesus christ in loud laments, as if he had been present at it. all this was seen and heard by some one or other of his companions, who had the pardonable curiosity to watch his proceedings. the devils tormented him severely during his prayers, and that in a very sensible manner, as st. bonaventure informs us; but, protected by celestial aid, he continued his prayers with additional fervor, in proportion to the efforts they made to distract him. god favored him with the gift of contemplation in a sublime degree. his companions bear witness that they have often seen him in a state of ecstasy, in which he had lost all the use of his senses, and in which all the powers of his soul were suspended. once they saw him, during the night, raised from the ground, and his arms extended in the shape of a cross, surrounded by a luminous cloud, as if to betoken the divine light which filled his mind. st. bonaventure says that they had efficient proof that god at such times revealed to him some of the great secrets of his wisdom; but his faithful servant only made such parts of them known as were for the glory of his master, or the utility of his neighbor. one of his brethren, not finding him one evening in his cell, went to look for him in the wood. having penetrated a short distance into it, he heard him praying, with loud cries, for the salvation of men, and addressing the blessed virgin with moving sighs, humbly imploring her to show him her son. he then saw the blessed mother of god descend from heaven, with great splendor, and place her son into the arms of francis, who received him as simeon had received him in the temple of jerusalem, with the profoundest respect; he caressed the infant most tenderly, entreating him for the conversion of sinners, and the salvation of the world. at this sight the religious fell on the ground, half dead, and remained on the spot where he fell. here the saint found him, as he was returning to the convent for matins; he brought him to himself from this fainting, but strictly forbade him from telling any one what had occurred; but he, thinking it for the glory of god not to be obliged to obey in this instance, communicated the marvel to all the others. a novice whom the holy patriarch had received, and whom he was taking to the convent of the novitiate, wished to know what he did during the night. in order to succeed, he tied his cord to that of the father, whom he saw asleep in the fields, in which they had been obliged to remain, and laid himself down near him, in order that he might be roused as soon as he should stir. a few hours afterwards, francis wished to get up, but finding himself fastened by the cord, he untied the knot, and went to pray under some neighboring trees. the novice, not finding him when he awoke, went to seek him under the trees. a celestial light caused him to draw near a spot, where he stopped, and from whence he saw jesus christ, surrounded by angels, his blessed mother, and john the baptist, who were in conversation with him. his astonishment made him fall on the ground, where he remained till francis, to whom god had imparted the circumstances, came and raised him up, and restored him to his senses, forbidding him to speak of the vision. the young man, who continued to live very holily, kept the secret; but, after francis's death, he published what he had seen. god chose that his servant should be respected in the secret retirements to which he went to pray, and that he should not be disturbed at those times. the bishop of assisi knew this by his own experience. one day, when he had come to the convent of portiuncula, as he frequently did, he wished to go at once into the cell where the saint was at prayer; but scarcely had he seen him in that attitude, when he was pushed back by an invisible hand, his body became stiff, and he was unable to speak. much astonished at this accident, he made his way back, as well as he could, to the other brethren; god restored his voice, and he made use of it, to acknowledge that he had committed a fault. the celestial spouse, in the canticles, conjures the daughters of jerusalem, "not to awaken her whom he loves, and not to disturb her repose until she awakes of her own accord." st. bernard, on this, says that such as are given to prayer should not be troubled about useless affairs, and that those who disturb them when they are conversing with god, become enemies of heaven. in consequence of the knowledge which francis had of the sweets and fruits of mental prayer, he constantly urged his brethren to practise it, and they profited so fully by his instructions, that most of them became spiritual and contemplative men. "a religious," he said, "must principally desire to acquire the spirit of prayer. i believe that, without this, peculiar favors cannot be obtained from god, nor any great progress made in his service. when one is sorrowful and uneasy, he should have immediate recourse to prayer, and remain before his heavenly father, until such time as the joy of salvation is restored to him. if one remains in this state of depression and disturbance, this disposition, which comes from babylon, will increase, and produce rust, unless it be purified by tears." he taught them to shun the tumult of the world, and to seek for solitary places in which to pray, because he knew that the holy ghost communicates himself more intimately to souls in such places; but he recommended them to be perfectly secret as to the favors they might receive; his maxim being, that a slender human communication often causes the loss of that which is of inestimable value, and has the effect of preventing the lord from again communicating what he had previously given; that when one is visited by god, he should say: "it is thou, o lord! who hast sent me this consolation from heaven,--to me who am a sinner, wholly unworthy of thy bounty. i commit it back to thy keeping; for i feel myself capable of stealing thy treasure from thee;" and when he returns from prayer, he should show as much humility and self-contempt as if he had received no peculiar favor. all the masters of spiritual life have had similar opinions of the value of mental prayer as this contemplative saint, and they have pointed out the necessity of it for advancing in the ways of virtue. st. teresa wrote so sublimely on this practice, that the church prays to god that "her heavenly doctrine may be our nourishment." she declares that she was near being lost, from having given it up, but that our lord had done her the signal favor to urge her to resume it; she exhorts all to apply themselves to it, even should they make but small progress in it, because it is always useful, and, if persevered in, will be attended with great benefit. this is what directors might represent to those who seriously wish to attend to their salvation, and to say to them, with the same saint, that "mental prayer is nothing else but holding friendly intercourse with god, often remaining alone in conversation with him, who, we know, loves us." the practice of mental prayer no way diminished the zeal of st. francis for vocal prayer, which every christian ought to resort to as he did. vocal prayer was practised and taught by jesus christ; the church employs it in her public worship. "we require it," says st. austin, "to assist our memory and understanding, and to animate our fervor; finally, god desires that we should offer to him "a sacrifice of praise," and that it shall be "the fruits of our lips and hearts, giving glory to his name," because our body and soul belong to him. piety had inspired the holy man to compose vocal prayers on various subjects, which he often repeated, and some of which he recited daily. he said the lord's prayer, with particular devotion, weighing all the words, and meditating on the sense they contain, as is seen by the paraphrase of it he composed, and which we think it useful to insert at length: "'our father,' most happy and most holy, our creator, our redeemer, and our consoler. 'who art in heaven;' in the angels, in the saints, in the illuminated, in order that they may know thee, who inflamest them by thy love; for, o lord! thou are the light and the love who dwellest in them, and thou art their beatitude by satiating them: thou art the sovereign and eternal good, from whom all good proceeds, and without thee there is no other good. 'hallowed be thy name:' in order thus to make thyself known to us by vivid lights, so that we may see the full extent of thy bounty, the duration of thy promises, the sublimity of thy majesty, and the depth of thy judgment. 'thy kingdom come:' in order that thou mayest reign in us by grace, and that thou mayest bring us to thy kingdom, where thou art clearly and perfectly loved, where we become happy in thy society, and where thou art eternally enjoyed. 'thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven:' in order that we may love thee 'with our whole hearts,' thinking always of thee 'with our whole soul,' ever longing for thee, 'with all our mind,' referring to thee all our views, seeking thy glory in all things; 'with all our strength,' employing in thy service, for thy love, all the strength,' of our bodies and souls, without making any other use of them; that we may love our neighbor as ourselves, using all our efforts to draw them to thy love; rejoicing in all the good that happens to them, as if it was our own; being grieved at any ills which may befall them, and giving offence to none. 'give us this day our daily bread:' it is thy beloved son, jesus christ; we ask thee for him, in order to remind us of the love he has shown us, and of what he has said, done and endured for us; we ask thee to make us fully comprehend these things, and cause us to revere them. 'forgive us our trespasses,' by thy infinite mercy, by the passion of thy beloved son, our lord jesus christ, by the merits and intercession of the blessed virgin mary, and of all the elect. 'as we forgive them that trespass against us:' what may be not altogether remitted on our part, grant us the favor, o lord! to remit entirely, in order that, for love of thee, we may sincerely love our enemies, and may intercede for them fervently at thy throne; that we may not render to any one evil for evil, and that in thee we may endeavor to do good to all. 'and lead us not into temptation,' hidden, manifest, sudden, grievous. 'but deliver us from evil:', past, present, and to come. amen: willingly and gratuitously" these two words show that he ardently desired what he prayed for; and that it was purely for the glory of god, without any temporal interest. he recited the divine offices with a devotion full of respect, and with great fervor. st. bonaventure says that, although he suffered greatly from pains in his head, from his stomach, and from his liver, he never leant while reciting it; that he stood during the whole time, with his head uncovered, his eyes looking down. in travelling, he always stopped to say it; however much it might rain, he never omitted this pious practice, and he gave this reason for it: "if the body rests, in order to take its food, which will, as well as himself, soon become the food of worms, with how much tranquillity ought the soul to take its spiritual nourishment, which is to cause it to live eternally!" the verse, gloria patri, etc., made a lively impression on his heart; once he repeated it in thankfulness to god for his bounty after each verse of the magnificat, which brother leo was reciting, and he exhorts all to say it frequently. a lay brother, who was strongly tempted to apply himself to study, having come to ask his permission, was told: "my dear brother, learn the gloria patri, and you will know the whole of the holy scriptures."--the brother obeyed, and had no further temptation on that head. the distractions which his lively imagination caused him during the holy exercises, appeared to him to be great faults, and he never failed to confess them, and to expiate them by penance, asserting that we ought to be ashamed of being distracted by trifles when speaking to the great king. once during tierce, the thought of a little vase which he had made came into his head, and called off his attention; he immediately went and took it, and threw it into the fire, saying: "i will sacrifice it to the lord, whose sacrifice it has hindered." but he acquired the habit of reciting the office so attentively, that this sort of distractions seldom importuned him. his application was equally strong and respectful in reciting the psalms, as if god had been present in a sensible manner; and he found so much sweetness in the name of god, that he seemed to have the taste of sweetness on his lips, after having pronounced it. thus the prophet said to the lord: "how sweet are thy words to my palate! more than honey to my mouth." francis had also an interior joy in pronouncing the holy name of jesus, which communicated itself to his exterior, and produced on his senses a similar effect as if he had tasted something agreeable to his palate, or heard some harmonious sounds. he desired that all the holy names should be peculiarly reverenced, not only when people thought of them, or pronounced them, but whenever they saw them written. this is the reason why, in his last will, he recommends his brethren to pick them up should they find them scattered about in unseemly places, and put them in a better locality, lest they should be disrespectfully trampled upon. this must be considered not as a mere nicety of feeling, but as a sentiment inspired by faith, which teaches us to venerate the word of god. if a great bishop has thought it proper to compare the abuse of the sacred word, when it is announced, to the profanation of the body itself of jesus christ, may we not, in the same spirit, say that he who permits that word to be trampled upon when it is written, becomes in some measure as guilty as if he had allowed the sacred body of our saviour to be treated with similar indignity? it was the love of god which gave st. francis so much zeal for mental prayer, as well as for that which is vocal. he sought his beloved, from whom he was only separated by the wall of his flesh. to be present to him in spirit, and to contemplate him, were his sole consolations, and his anxiety to gain these was intense. but then the frequent exercise of prayer increased his love, and inflamed it to that degree, that st. bonaventure does not think it possible to find words to express it. this divine charity penetrated his whole interior, as fire penetrates a burning coal. only by hearing the term of the love of god pronounced, he was moved and inflamed, and this movement made the affections of his soul thrill, as the strings of a musical instrument sound on being touched. to incite himself more and more to the love of god, he made use of all creatures, as of so many mirrors, in which he viewed the supreme reason, the sovereign beauty, and the principle of being and of life. they were for him as so many steps by which he raised and united himself to the object of his love, as so many streamlets in which he tasted, with inconceivable unction, the infinite purity of the source from whence all that is good is derived; so many delightful strains whose harmony resounded on his ears, and which, as david in his psalms, he invited to praise and glorify him who had given them their being. wholly inflamed with love, he prayed to be enabled to love still more, and he addressed the following prayer to god, which is found among his works: "grant, o lord! that the mild vehemence of thy ardent love may separate me from everything which is under heaven, and may consume me entirely, in order that i may die for the love of thy love, since it was for the love of my love that thou didst deign to die. i solicit this through thyself, o son of god! who livest and reignest with the father and the holy ghost for ever and ever. amen." and here is another, which he used to say every day: "my god and my all, who art thou, o sweet lord! and who am i, thy servant, a miserable worm? i wish to love thee, most holy lord, i wish to love thee. o god! i have consecrated to thee my heart and my body. if i had the means of doing more for thee, i would do it, and i ardently wish i had the means." this poor evangelical could not give more to god than his body and soul. he continually offered the sacrifice of his body, by the rigor of his fasts, and that of his soul, by the vehemence of his desires; "by which," says st. bonaventure, "he conformed in a spiritual manner to the practice of the old law, which was to offer holocausts out of the tabernacle, and to burn incense within it." the sacrifice of his desires went to a great extent. for the love of god he had renounced all the things of this earth; he had stripped himself of everything; he had embraced the severest poverty, and practised the most austere penitential life; he had devoted himself to the ministry of preaching, and to the establishment of his order; his life was but a course of labors and fatigue, but he reckoned all that as nothing; he wished to do much more, to mortify himself more rigorously, to forward thereby the glory of god, because, according to the words of our saviour, this is the greatest mark of love which a friend can give to his friend. this was the motive of the ardent desire he had to endure martyrdom, and of the three voyages he undertook in search of it; seeing that he could not succeed, he lowered his views to wishing for and soliciting grace to know what he could do, to testify his love for god. the lord granted his desire, favoring him with the impression of his five wounds, which rendered him a living and, at the same time, an expiring martyr; but it inflamed his heart to such a degree, that then he wished to die for love, and to be absorbed in the love of him whom he loved. inflamed with divine love, he endeavored to spread the fire on all sides. he often made it the subject of his discourses, and it was usually the motive he employed to animate his brethren to the practice of virtue. when he proposed anything that was difficult to them, such as to go about soliciting alms, "go," he would say, "and ask it for the love of god." he found a noble prodigality in asking it for that motive, and he thought those demented who preferred money to the love of god, the price of which is incalculable, and sufficient to purchase the kingdom of heaven, and which the love of him who has so loved us must make infinitely dear to us. they were surprised one day to find that he could bear the severity of winter in so miserable a habit as that which he wore, and, full of fervor, he gave this reason, which contains a very useful lesson; "if we were inwardly inflamed with a longing for our celestial country, we should easily bear exterior cold." it was his wish that a friar minor should love god with an effective, liberal, and generous love, which should enable him to suffer calmly and joyfully pain and opprobrium for the object of his love. this is what he said one day to brother leo, on the subject, in a conversation which leo himself has recorded at full length: "if a friar minor had a clear and distinct knowledge of the course of the stars, and of all other things in the universe; if he possessed all the sciences, all the languages, and a perfect knowledge of the holy scriptures; and if he spoke with the tongues of angels, cast out devils, performed all sorts of miracles, even that of raising one from the dead who had been four days in the tomb; if he had the gift of prophecy, and that of discerning the affections of the heart; if he preached to the infidels with such success as to convert them all, and if he should edify the world by his sanctity, all that would not be to him the subject of perfect and true joy." afterwards, to show in what this true joy consisted, he proposed a supposition, similar to one he had made on another subject, and very like to the hypothesis of st. paul: "who shall separate us from the love of jesus christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or nakedness, or persecution, or the sword?" from which he concluded, that all that there is in heaven or on earth could not separate him from the love of god, which is grounded on jesus christ, our lord. "suppose," said st. francis, "that we were to arrive at the convent of st. mary of the angels very wet, covered with mud, perishing with cold, dying of hunger, and that the porter, instead of letting us in, were to leave us at the gate in this pitiable state, saying angrily, 'you are a couple of idle vagabonds, who stroll about the world, and receive the alms which the real poor ought to get.' if we bear this treatment with patience, without being discomposed, and without murmuring; if even we think humbly and charitably that the porter knows us well for what we are, and that it is by god's leave that he behaves thus to us, mark this down as perfect joy." "suppose, moreover, that we continue to knock at the door, and that the porter, considering us importunate, should come out and give us some severe boxes on the ears, and say, 'get along, scoundrels, go to the hospital, there is nothing for you to eat here.' if we bear all these things patiently, and we pardon him from our hearts, and with charity, note, this would be a subject for perfect joy." "let us, in fine, suppose, that in this extremity the cold, hunger, and the night, compel us to entreat, with tears and cries to be allowed to enter the convent, and that the porter, in great irritation, darts out with a stick full of knobs, takes us by the cowl, throws us down in the snow, and beats us till we are quite covered with bruises:--if we bear all this ill usage with joy, with the thought that we ought to participate in the sufferings of our blessed saviour jesus christ, note this, and note it carefully, that this is, for a friar minor, the subject of a true and perfect joy." "now hear the conclusion of all this. amongst all the gifts of the holy ghost, which jesus christ has granted and will grant to his servants, the most considerable is, that of conquering one's self, and of suffering pain and opprobrium for the love of god, in order to respond to the love he has for us. in all the miraculous gifts which i have noticed, there is not one from which we may derive so much glory; we have no share in it, it is all from god; we only receive what he gives us, and, as st. paul says, 'if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?' but we have our share in the tribulations which we suffer for the love of god, and we may make it a subject of glory, as the same apostle has said: 'god forbid that i should glory save in the cross of our lord jesus christ.'" st. francis was far from thinking that we may glory in our sufferings, as of a favor which we have not received, since he acknowledges that it is the greatest gift of the holy ghost, conformably to what st. paul said to the philippians: "to you is given not only to believe in jesus christ, but also to suffer for his sake;" and to what is written of the apostles: "and they, indeed, went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted to suffer reproach for the name of jesus." he only proposed to say that our sole cause of glory is, that god permits us to be associated to the cross of jesus christ, in which alone we are glorified. thus it is to god that he refers all the glory of our sufferings, which indeed is his, since, without the aid of his grace, we should not suffer as we ought, and without the cross of jesus christ we should have no merit. but he correctly says, and he speaks the true orthodox faith, when he adds, that we have a share in the merit of what we suffer, and when he draws the distinction between that and miraculous gifts. st. chrysostom has spoken in the same manner, and says that our virtues are in so far the gifts of god, that they are also merits of our will, for which god has been pleased to render himself indebted to us, by the promise he has made to reward them. the mystery of the incarnate word, "that great mystery of piety, which has been manifested in the flesh," produced in the heart of st. francis sentiments so pious and so tender, that they were observable exteriorly, by actions of extraordinary fervor, as we saw in the grand solemnity which he celebrated at grecio on christmas night. "consider," he says, in his letters, "that the most high father has sent from heaven his archangel, st. gabriel, to announce that his most worthy, holy, and glorious word should descend into the womb of the most blessed virgin mary. and, in truth, he did so descend, and took from her true human flesh, passible and mortal, such as ours is: 'being rich, he became of his own accord poor.' he chose, by preference, poverty in this world for himself and for his blessed mother. he gave himself thus to us, in conformity to the will of his father, to wipe away our sins on the cross, by the sacrifice of his blood, and to leave an example for us to follow in his traces, for it is his wish that we should all be saved through him; but there are few who desire the salvation he proffers them, although his yoke is sweet, and his burden light." when he spoke of the incarnation and birth of the son of god, it was with affectionate devotion; he could not hear the words, "the word made flesh," without manifesting great joy. the religious of a monastery where he was one day, remarked this emotion, and took occasion to ask him if it was right to eat meat on christmas-day, when it fell on a friday, or if it was not better to abstain from it. "not only do i think," he replied, "that men may eat meat on this day, on which the word was made flesh, but i wish that princes and rich persons would throw meat and corn in the highways, in order that the birds and beasts of the field should rejoice, in their way, in the joys of so great a festival; i wish, even, that some was placed on the walls, if they could derive sweetness from it." we see plainly that these are hyperbolical expressions, flowing from his heart, by the emotions of his spiritual joy, by which he was actuated; but, in saying that men might eat meat on christmas-day, although it fall on a friday, he speaks in conformity with the usage of the church, which, however, is a permission, and not a law. pope honorius iii. pointed it out clearly to the bishop of prague, in bohemia, in the following rescript of the year : "we answer that, when the feast of the nativity of our blessed lord falls on a friday, those who are not under the obligation of abstinence by a vow, or by a regular observance, may eat meat on that day, because of the excellence of the festival, according to the custom of the universal church. those, however, who abstain on that day, from devotion, are not to be censured." st. francis was, moreover, much affected by the goodness of our saviour, who, after his baptism, went into the desert, and there fasted forty days and forty nights, without eating anything during that time, for the expiation of our sensuality, and to set us an example of fasting. he honored this holy retreat by a fast of forty days, which he commenced on the seventh day of january, and which he passed in some solitary place, confined to his cell, keeping strict abstinence in fasting and drinking, and employing himself solely in praising god and in prayer. it was also during this lent that he received the most signal favors from jesus christ. his soul was penetrated with ardor for the mystery of the sacred body and blood of our lord. the work of so tender a love, and of such condescending goodness, threw him into an excess of admiration, and put him quite beside himself. he communicated frequently, and with so much devotion, that it inspired others with similar feelings; they saw him almost always, after having communicated, as if in a spiritual intoxication, and raised into ecstasy by the sweetness he tasted in partaking of the body and blood of the lamb without spot. at mass, when at the elevation, he said this prayer: "celestial father, my lord and my god, cast thine eyes on the glorious countenance of thy christ, and have pity on me and on other sinners, for whom thy beloved son, our lord, has condescended to die, and who has chosen to remain with us in the sacrament of the altar, for our salvation and consolation: who with thee, eternal father, and the holy ghost, sole god, liveth and reigneth to everlasting ages. amen." the profound veneration which is due to the august mystery of the eucharist, the solicitude which we ought to have to hear mass, to approach to the sacred altar, and to prepare ourselves, in order worthily to communicate, were points on which he used to dilate in his conversations, in his instructions, and in his letters. the life of the holy man has furnished many examples of the ardent and respectful zeal which animated him in all that regarded churches or altars, or all the things which were used for the sacrifice of the mass, and for the divine service. as he could not bear anything dirty or slovenly, in the country churches, he took the trouble of cleaning everything himself; and lest they should want altar breads for masses, he made them himself in iron forms, which were made in a very workmanlike manner; he took them into the poor parishes: some of these moulds are carefully preserved in the convent of grecio. the great love which he had for jesus christ, and for the sacrament which contains his body, his blood, his soul, and his divinity, inspired him with a zeal and a tenderness of devotion to his blessed mother, which cannot be expressed, as st. bonaventure remarks. he placed himself and his order under the protection of this blessed mother of god, whom he chose for his advocate; and in her, after jesus christ, his chief confidence rested: "for," said he, "it is she who made this god of majesty our brother; through her we have obtained mercy." he used, as we have noticed, to keep a lent of six weeks, in honor of her glorious assumption; and he observed it with great sentiments of piety. these are the prayers and eulogiums he was in the habit of addressing to her:-- "hail, mary! mother of god, ever a virgin, most holy lady and queen, in whom is all the plenitude of grace and every sort of good. amongst women there are none born like unto thee; thou art the daughter and the handmaid of our celestial father, the great king; and he has chosen thee for the mother of his beloved son. thou art the spouse of the holy ghost, the comforter. hail to thee, who art the palace, the temple, and the mother of our lord jesus christ! i honor all the virtues with which thou art filled. thou who art as mild as thou art beautiful, implore thy very dear son, conjure him by his great clemency, by the virtue of his most sacred incarnation and that of his most painful death, to pardon our faults. amen." the indissoluble ties of spiritual love, says the holy doctor whom we have quoted, united francis to the hierarchy of the angels, caused in him marvellous fire which absorbs man in god, and influences the elect with noble aims. the ardent zeal he had for the salvation of souls, attached him intimately to the archangel st. michael, because his employment is to present man to the throne of the divine majesty. it was to honor these blessed spirits, that he kept every year a lent of forty days, before the feast of st. michael, adding to it a continual exercise of prayer. he had prescribed to himself another lent, to prepare for the festival of all saints, who seemed to him to be, according to the expression of ezekiel, precious stones, glittering as fire, the memory alone of which excited him to a more fervent love of god. the great love which all the apostles had for jesus christ, led him to revere them with peculiar devotion, particularly saints peter and paul, in honor of whom he fasted from whit-sunday to their feast. it is useful to remark here that this great saint, who was raised to a sublime degree of prayer, did not neglect, nevertheless, the usual practices of piety with the rest of the faithful. this may serve as a preservative against an illusion which might lead to the belief that they are useless to the spiritual, and that those who are mystical, may dispense with them, to devote themselves to contemplation. his heart was so full and so penetrated with that true and sincere piety, of which charity is the soul, that it seemed to have entire possession of him. it united him incessantly to god, to the friends of god, and to everything which was holy; but, as the apostle says, "prayer is profitable to all things"; it gave him a fund of all that was good, a spirit of meekness, of condescension, and of zeal, to communicate with his neighbor. all men were dear to him, because he saw in them the same nature, the same grace, the image of the creator, and the blood of the redeemer. if he had not taken care of the salvation of souls, which jesus christ had redeemed, he would not have considered himself among the number of his friends. "nothing," he said, "is preferable to the salvation of souls;" and he gave several reasons for this, and principally this one: that, for them, the only son of god had condescended to be nailed to the cross. it was also for them that he labored and lived; for them, in some measure, he called in question the justice of god in prayer, and powerfully solicited his mercy; for them he frequently forewent the sweets of a contemplative life; he undertook journeys, he preached everywhere, he exposed himself to martyrdom, and their edification was one of his motives in the practice of virtue. although his innocent flesh, already perfectly under the control of the spirit, did not require to be chastised for any faults, he, nevertheless, mortified it in various ways for the edification of his neighbor. when he was censured for his too great austerities, he replied:--"i am sent to give this example; if i had not the charity to give it, i should be of little use to others, and of none to myself, although i spoke all the languages known to men and angels." seeing that a multitude of persons, stimulated by his example, fervently embraced the cross of christ, he became animated with fresh courage to put himself at the head of these pious troops, as a valiant captain, in order to gain with them a victory over the devil, by the practice of perfect and invincible virtue. the sanctity of his life gave him great freedom in his manner of preaching. he spoke fearlessly, without any apprehension of what critics might say, because he had acted before teaching, and he felt and had experienced all he said. the zealous preacher knew not how to flatter. far from sparing sinners by complacence, he reproached their vices in forcible language, and attacked their disorderly conduct with great vehemence. the presence of the great of the world did not intimidate him; he spoke to them as plainly and forcibly as he had done to the common people; and, as all souls were equally dear to him, he preached as willingly, and with as much zest, to a few people, as to a crowded auditory. the tender love which st. francis bore for souls redeemed by the blood of jesus christ, rendered him very sensible to their misfortunes. when he knew of any one stained by the filth of sin, he lamented over it with deep grief. his charity, fertile in expedients, inspired him sometimes to give to wicked persons temporal assistance, with a view of getting them to return to the ways of salvation. one day, when he was at the convent of mount casal, brother angelo, who was the guardian of it, told him that there were in the neighborhood three notorious robbers, who injured considerably the farmers of the vicinity, and daily came and extorted from them the bread which was destined for the convent, without their being able to prevent it. "brother," he replied, "if you will do what i will point out to you, my confidence in god tells me that you will reform these men, and gain their souls. go and seek them out: although they are robbers, they are still our brothers. take them the best bread you have, and some wine, spread a cloth on the ground, and invite them to eat with you; while they are eating, speak to them of holy things, in an insinuating manner, both yourself and your companion; humbly entreat them to injure no one any more. if they promise you this, return to them the next day, and take them something to eat, with bread and wine as before, and tell them that you bring that, as to brethren and friends, who have granted you what you asked of them. if you do this a third time, do not doubt but god will enlighten them, and touch their hearts, and bring them into the right way." brother angelo followed this advice, and gained over the robbers so completely, that they gave up their lives of plunderers, and began to render service to the convent, supplying them with fire-wood, which they carried to them on their shoulders. their conversion was complete: one of them entered the order, and the other two went elsewhere to embrace a penitential life. the guardian used similar means for converting three other robbers, who retired into the recesses of the mountain, after having induced the saint to pray for them. all three afterwards entered the order of friars minor and lived holy lives. the affection which our saint had always shown for the poor from his infancy, during the first years of his youth, and at the beginning of his conversion, became stronger and stronger, and was manifested on all occasions. st. bonaventure says that he spared nothing to come to their assistance. cloaks, tunics, books, the ornaments of the church, all that he had he gave to them. many times he has been seen taking the burdens from the poor he met on the road, and bear them on his own weak shoulders. when he returned from begging, he shared what he had received with any that solicited alms at his hands; and as long as anything remained, he never refused any one. at sienna, a small cloak had been given to him, which was very necessary for his infirmities; but, in leaving the town, he met a poor person, whose wretched state excited his pity, and he said to his companion: "let us restore this cloak to him, for it belongs to him; we have only borrowed it, until such time as we should see some one poorer than ourselves." the companion, knowing that francis really required it, endeavored to prevent his parting with it, but the father made him this answer: "if i did not give this cloak to a poor man, who had more need of it than i have, i should think i had committed a theft, which i should be convicted of by our sovereign lord, who is the universal almoner." it was for this reason that, when anything was given him, he asked leave to give it away, if he should meet with any one poorer than himself. on the same principle, notwithstanding his infirmities, when he was at the convent at celles, he gave another cloak, which he had received in charity, to a poor woman. one of the brothers having taken it back, promising to give the woman something else instead, the saint said immediately:--"my brother, kneel down and acknowledge your fault; give the cloak back to the woman: she is poorer than i am." his companions got him another, and he gave it again to a man of cortona, who came to solicit alms for the love of god, at the same convent at celles. he told francis that his wife was dead, that he had several little children, and that he had no food for them: "i give you this cloak," said the saint, "on this condition, that, if you are asked to give it back, you do no such thing, unless you receive its full value." the brethren, indeed, did all they could to induce him to give it back: they told him there was no one poorer than the person who had given it to him, or who wanted it more on account of his bad health and the rigor of the season. but the man, referring to what his benefactor had said, answered that the cloak was his, and that he would not part with it, unless he received its full value. in order, therefore, to have it returned, they were under the necessity of taking him to a friend who gave him in money what the cloak was considered to be worth. a very old woman, the mother of two of the friars minor, having come to the convent of st. mary of the angels to ask for charity, francis told the guardian to give her something; and he having said that there was not anything then in the convent which could be given, unless it was a book of the gospel which the brethren read out of, when they were in the choir the father said:--"give it that the poor woman may sell it to provide for her necessities. i believe that this will be more agreeable to god, than reading out of it. what is it that a mother has not a right to require from us, who has given two of her sons to the religious?" another time, a poor man came to ask for an old habit. francis desired them to look about well for one that was not used. as such an one was not to be found, he stole aside and began to unpick some breadths of his own, in order to give them to the man; the guardian, being informed of this, came down hastily and forbade his taking them out: "i will obey you, because you are my superior, but give this poor man something to cover himself with; otherwise i shall have a scruple, and shall be grieved to be obliged to wear an entire habit which is lined, to keep me warm, while this poor man is shivering with cold at the gate." he went to the poor man to console him, and did not leave him until the guardian had given him something wherewith to clothe himself; and this alms was no less comforting to his charitable feelings, than the clothing was to the misery of the poor man. by a similar impulse of charity, and in order to prevent curses against god, he gave his cloak to a servant who complained of the great injury his master had done him, cursing him and blaspheming providence for allowing the poor to be so ill used. he gave him his cloak on the condition that he would leave off cursing and blaspheming. the physician who saw the saint in his illness, near rieti, having one day mentioned the extreme poverty of an old woman who was begging, he sent for the guardian and said: "here is a cloak which i have worn until such time as some one should be found who has a greater right to it than i have; i beg you to send it, with some of the bread which has been received on the quest, by one of the brethren, to our sister, who is very poor, and let him say that we only give her what belongs to her. i conceive that what is given to us can only be ours until such time as some one shall come forward, who is more in want of it than we are." not to vex the holy man, the commission was faithfully executed. the blessed patriarch wished that such of his children who had not studied, and had no talent for preaching, should be employed in serving their brethren, and should frequent the hospitals, there to render the meanest offices to the lepers, with humility and charity. brother james the simple, who came from perugia, was greatly distinguished by his zeal in this charitable exercise, insomuch that they gave him the name of the steward and physician of the lepers. francis recommended one to him, whose body was a mass of sores, from his head to his feet. james took such care of him, that, by degrees, he regained his strength; and, thinking fresh air would contribute to his restoration, he took him with him, although still full of ulcers, to the convent of saint mary of the angels. this appeared to the saint, who met him, to have been very indiscreet, and he said to brother james: "you should not lead about, in this manner, the christian brothers; it is neither proper in you, nor good for them. i wish you to serve them in their hospital, but i do not wish you to take them out of it, for there are many persons who cannot bear the sight of them." the leper was distressed at hearing his benefactor thus reprimanded, and he blushed for shame. francis, perceiving him to have been mortified, threw himself immediately at his feet, and begged his pardon, and, in order to console him, he ate at the door of the convent, out of the same plate with the leper, after which he embraced and kissed him, and dismissed him satisfied. there was in the hospital a leper who was so impatient and so violent, that he abused and struck the friars minor who served him, and even went so far as to blaspheme god. they reported this to their father, who offered himself to the sick man, to wait upon him: "what can you do for me more than your companions have done?" replied the invalid. "ever since i have had this insupportable disorder, god has forgotten me. i am in despair, i can live no longer; no one can mitigate my sufferings; neither you nor any one else." francis, seeing that he was agitated by the evil spirit, left him for a while, prayed for him, and returned to exhort him by the most urgent motives, to be patient. as he saw that the man became calmer, he asked him what might seem most agreeable to him; what he should do for him. he said that he should now wash his whole body, that he could no longer endure the stench of the infection. the saint quickly got some water warmed, into which he put aromatic herbs, and began to wash him himself, while his companion poured out the water. as he washed, his cure advanced, and, at the same time, the grace of god made such impression on the mind of the patient, that, as the water flowed from his body, the tears flowed from his eyes. the washing having terminated, the leper being perfectly cleansed and converted, publicly confessed his sins, asked for mercy, and went through a rigorous course of penance. he died a few months afterwards, and appeared to the saint, thanking him that, by his means, after a light punishment in purgatory, he was about to enjoy eternal glory. god performed a different miracle on another occasion, to justify the charity of his servant to the poor. at alexandria de la paille, a town of the milanese, where he was received as a saint, he was invited to dinner by a wealthy and pious man. while he was at table, a man of bad character, who was, however, jealous of francis's reputation, watched all his actions, in order to decry and criticise them: this man counterfeited a beggar at the door, and solicited an alms for the love of god. as soon as francis heard the appeal for the love of god, he sent him the wing of a fowl, to which he had been just helped. the sham beggar, to whom it was taken, kept it. the next day he produced it, in a large concourse of people, where the saint was preaching, and, interrupting the discourse, he said in a loud voice: "this is the food on which the preacher feeds: should such a man be honored as a saint?" his malice received a signal check; the wing of the fowl which he exhibited, appeared to the bystanders to be fish, and he was thought to have lost his wits. he himself perceiving that what he held up was nothing but fish, was ashamed of what he had said, was touched with remorse, and published himself what had happened. after which, one miracle succeeded another; it was found that what had appeared to be fish, was in reality flesh. thus did the lord vindicate the virtue of his servant, punish envy, and convert the envious. the malignity of envy often finds its punishment in the artifices it employs to injure persons of virtue, but it is very unusual for the envious to be so converted. st. bonaventure says that st. francis felt a most tender compassion for all who suffered from temporal ills; that, indeed, he had naturally a feeling heart, but that the goodness of the heart of jesus christ, communicating itself to his, rendered it still more compassionate. he was the more sensible of the afflictions of others, as in all the poor, and in all those who suffered, he represented to himself his divine master, poor and suffering; in which, continues the holy doctor, he who was himself poor, showed that he was so as a perfect christian. when he had it not in his power to alleviate the sufferings of those in indigence or sickness, he endeavored, at least by soothing words, to assuage their feelings. one day, when he was about to preach, he was entreated by a poor and infirm man to recommend him to the auditors. his compassion was excited, and, with tears in his eyes, he said to his companion that he felt the man's ills as if they were his own. his companion answered the man rather drily, who was importunate in asking for alms, and in order to moderate the feelings of the saint, he said: "if we judged by exteriors, this man is apparently in great misery; but, if we could penetrate his interior, we should, perhaps, find that in the whole province there is not an individual richer in wishes, or more eaten up with pride: such characters are frequently found among beggars." francis censured him severely for having repulsed the poor man, and for judging him with so much asperity, and pointed out to him that in this he offended god. the religious acknowledged his error, and asked pardon on his knees. "i shall not pardon you," said francis, "unless you take off your habit, prostrate yourself before the poor man, acknowledge your fault, entreat him to pardon you, and to pray for you." the humble penitent did immediately all that he had been desired to do, after which francis embraced him, and said, with great mildness: "my son, it is not so much against the poor man that you have sinned, as against jesus christ, for he is in all the poor: they are so many mirrors, in which he represents to us his own poverty, and that of his blessed mother. therefore, as often as you see the poor and the sick, respect them, and humble yourself in their presence; consider, with sentiments of piety, that the son of god made himself poor for our sakes, and condescended to take upon himself our infirmities." if we cherish these christianlike views, we should not judge so harshly of the poor, of whom it is no less faulty to judge, than of the rich; and in their poverty we should find as powerful motives for loving jesus christ, as for affording the succor they require. the heart of st. francis was naturally so kind and so tender, that he felt an affection for creatures, but it was from a profound sentiment of piety that he called them his brothers and his sisters. going back to the origin of things, st. bonaventure says that he considered all that had being as having emanated from the bosom of the divinity, and he acknowledged that they had the same principle as himself. in fact, the creation established amongst them a sort of fraternity: god being the parent of all nature, it is not to be denied that, in this sense, everything which composes it is brotherly. and who can censure a man who is wholly religious, for expressing himself in a manner which is grounded on the first principles of religion? this trait shows both the elevation of his mind, and the piety of his heart; heretics alone can blame it. among animals, those he preferred were such as reminded him of the mildness of jesus christ, or were the symbol of some particular virtue, or which gave rise to some edifying reflections; and god has sometimes shown by miracles, how much the motive of these feelings was pleasing to him. lambs were peculiarly agreeable to the holy man, in memory of the meek lamb who permitted himself to be led to the slaughter, for the redemption of sinners; he frequently had them purchased, to prevent their being killed. while he was staying at the monastery of st. vereconda, which is in the diocese of gubbio, he found that on the previous night a sow had killed with its teeth a lamb, which had just been born. the lamb without spot, whom sinners put to death, flashed immediately upon his recollection, and the pity this excited in him, caused him to lament sorely the death of the little animal, which was a symbol of meekness; to curse the cruel beast which had killed it, and to wish that neither man nor beast might eat of its flesh. the sow was at that moment struck with a disease, of which it died in three days. it was thrown into a ravine, not far distant from the monastery, and no animal ventured to touch it: it became dry and hard as a piece of wood. st. bonaventure remarks, on this occasion, that if god was pleased to punish with death the cruelty of a beast, how infinitely more severe must not the punishment of cruel and pitiless men be in the other world. a lad went to sienna to sell some turtle-doves, which he had taken alive. francis met him on his way, and said: "these are innocent birds, which are compared in scripture to chaste and faithful souls i beg you earnestly not to put them into the hands of persons who would kill them, but to confide them to me." they were given to him, and he put them immediately into his bosom; he spoke to them as if they were capable of reasoning, not only by that natural impulse which induces us constantly to speak to animals, when we caress them, but also by an impression of the spirit of god. he told them of a great miracle, promising to prepare a nest for them, where they might increase and multiply, according to the intention of their creator. having taken them to his convent of ravacciano, near the walls of sienna, he forced his stick into the ground before the gate, and the stick became, by the following day, a large evergreen oak. he let the turtle-doves fly into it, desiring them to make their nests there, which they did for many succeeding years; and they were so familiar with the religious, that they came to feed from their hands. wading says that the tree was still there at his time and that many saw it. nor did the young man go unrewarded. francis told him that he would become a religious of his order, and that he would acquire eternal glory: he did, in fact, enter the order, and lived so holily as to earn heaven. the miracle was the cause of his vocation, and at the same time sanctioned the affection the saint showed these birds: he only loved god through the affection he showed to his creatures. so also, st. gregory thaumaturgus, according to the testimony of st. gregory of nyssa, having planted his stick in a spot where a river was breaking down the dyke and doing damage through the country, the lord changed it suddenly into a large tree, which checked the flood entirely, and served to honor the faith of his servant, and incite the infidels to believe in jesus christ. the divine love which inflamed the heart of st. francis, made everything appear amiable to him which could tend to the love and service of god. for this reason he was fond of birds, whose carol seemed to invite mankind to publish the glory of their creator, for, according to the words of jesus christ, "neither do they sow nor reap, nor gather into barns: yet their heavenly father feeds them." it was gratifying to him to remark the gray and ash color of larks, the color he had chosen for his order, so that the minors might often think on death. he also loved to admire the disposition of the plumage of such as were crested, which seemed to him to have some relation to the simplicity of his habit. on the lark rising into the air, and singing as soon as it has taken some grains of corn for its nourishment, he remarked with sensible pleasure that this example ought to teach us to give thanks to our common father, who gives us wherewithal for our sustenance, only to eat for his glory, to despise the earth, and to raise ourselves up to heaven, where our conversation ought to be. he was more fond of these small birds than of any others, because they induced holy thoughts, and he took as much care of them as he could. as he had noble and spiritual motives for his simplest and most common actions, god made use of this for the instruction of men by the example of a bird. near the convent of mount ranier, or mount colombo, there was a nest of crested larks, the mother of which came every day to feed out of the hand of the servant of god and took sufficient for herself and her brood: when they began to be strong, she brought the little ones to him. he perceived that the strongest of the brood pecked the others, and prevented them from taking up the grain. this displeased him, and addressing himself to the little bird as if it could understand him, "cruel and insatiable little animal," he said, "you will die miserably, and the greediest animals will not be willing to eat your flesh," in fact, some days afterwards, it was drowned in a basin, which was placed for them to drink out of. it was given to the cats and dogs, to see if they would eat it; but neither would touch it. it may be thought that so trifling an anecdote was not worth recording, but there is nothing trifling in the moral it contains. it is a natural representation of those greedy and insatiable men who devour the substance of their brethren, and envy them all that they cannot despoil them of; enemies of mankind, unworthy of the name of men, thieves, ruffians, ravaging wolves, as they are designated in scripture, whose voracity, say the holy fathers, surpasses that of wild beasts; whose life is a public calamity; hated and detested by all, during their lives, they die as they have lived, and their memory is held in execration. the tender-heartedness which francis evinced for animals has been ridiculed by heretics. nevertheless, the holy ghost tells us, by the mouth of wisdom, that "the just man regardeth the lives of his beasts." the patriarch jacob excused himself from following his brother esau, because his ewes and cows were heavy, and he was fearful he should kill them if he hurried them. when st. paul said, "doth god take care of oxen?" he only wished to insinuate that god is far more interested in what regards men. in this view st. chrysostom, commenting on the words of wisdom, which we have just quoted, says that the saints are tender-hearted; that they love all men, strangers as well as their own countrymen and their own families, and that their good feelings are extended to senseless animals. sulpicius severus relates of st. martin, that, seeing some hounds pursuing a hare, which they were on the point of catching, he ordered them to stop; he had no sooner spoken, than the hounds became immovable on the spot where they were, and they did not stir till the hare was placed in safety. an author of the life of st. bernard, who had been his secretary, says that not only men, but irrational animals, even birds, and other beasts, felt the effects of his tenderness. he adds that the saint, in one of his journeys, coming close to a hare, which the dogs were about to catch, and where a bird was nearly seized in the talons of a hawk, delivered them both miraculously by the sign of the cross, and then told the sportsmen that all their efforts would be useless for taking this prey. if it had been thought proper not to omit in his life, and in that of st. martin also, these anecdotes of the goodness of their hearts, which were enhanced by supernatural evidence, and of which god approved by his wisdom and his power, what right can critics have to censure precisely similar circumstances in the life of st. francis? the glorious patriarch, who praised god in the minutest things, procured his glory in the greatest. his principal care was to lead his brethren to perfection; to render them worthy imitators of jesus crucified, capable of exciting his love in all hearts. it would be difficult to point out the founder of an order who had spoken more, taught more, or exhorted more, than st. francis; and it may have been noticed that he instructed his disciples in the most solid and eminent virtues. he recommended them to put the gospel in practice, as they had promised to do in making profession of the rule; to adore profoundly and with great devotion the body of jesus christ; to hear mass most devoutly; to celebrate the divine office with attention; carefully to keep all the ordinances of the church; to have the greatest veneration for all priests, humbly to bow in their presence, and to kiss their hands. he even said that, if it could be done, they ought to kiss the feet of the horses on which they rode, to honor the power which they have of consecrating and administering the divine mysteries. when abroad, it was his desire that his religious should appear with so much modesty, reserve, and circumspection, that every one might be edified thereby, and glorify god therein. "do not despise the men of the world," he said, "and judge not ill of them. you are not to judge other persons' servants, who are not yours; whether they stand or fall, it is not your affair, but that of their masters. have peace in your own mind, make it known to others, inspire it to all; labor for the conversion of sinners, for that is your vocation." attentive to the regulation of the interior, he incessantly exhorted them to correct the smallest defects; to exercise themselves in the practice of holy prayer, to meditate on the passion of our blessed saviour, and to use all their efforts to preserve union and fraternal love. "happy," said he, "is the man who loves his brother when absent, as well as when they are together, and who would not say in his absence what charity would prevent his saying in his presence." in the view of rendering his brethren more perfect, he frequently counteracted the bent of their devotion. brother masse was a very spiritual man, who was much attached to prayer. francis, in order to try him, said to him one day, in presence of the others: "brother, these have received from god a greater gift of contemplation than you have. for which reason, in order to give them more time to give themselves very freely to it, it seems proper that you, who seem more calculated for exterior duties, should have the care of the door and of the kitchen, and, if there is any time over, you will employ it in questing. take great care that the strangers who may call, do not interrupt your brethren in their meditations. as soon as they may knock at the door, be there ready to receive them, satisfy them with fair words, and do everything which the others would have done, so that it shall not be necessary for any of them to make their appearance. go in peace, and fail not in doing all these things, in order to have the merit of obedience." masse, bowing his head, submitted to the order of his superior, without hesitation or murmur, and, during several days, he acquitted himself faithfully of what had been directed. his companions, who knew his virtue, and the love he had for prayer, had scruples at seeing him in these employments, and begged their father to permit them to share these duties with him. he assented, and, sending for masse, said to him: "brother, your companions wish to relieve and assist you, and i also wish that they may have a share in the labors." to which mass replied, "father, i consider as coming from god whatever duties you direct, whether it be my work or prayer." st. francis, seeing the charity on the one part, and the humility on the other, gave them an exhortation on these two virtues, and distributed the duties among them, with his blessing. what he had ardently desired for himself, and what he was rejoiced to see some of his brethren look forward to most anxiously, was the perfection which consists in suffering martyrdom: in shedding one's blood for the faith. as he could not obtain this favor, and as it was only granted to a few of his brethren during his lifetime, he endeavored to make up for it by another species of martyrdom, which, as st. bernard says, is indeed less cruel than the first, but is rendered more bitter by its duration. it is the martyrdom of mortification, and principally that of voluntary poverty. in fact, this poverty, as he compelled its observance, not only placed him and his brethren in the most humiliating situation in the eyes of the world, but deprived them, moreover, of all the comforts and conveniences of life; exposed them to hunger, thirst, want of clothing, and various other annoying discomforts. all this, however, was not, in his view, the consummation of this description of martyrdom. it was still further requisite to suffer patiently, in time of pain and sickness, the want of assistance, which poverty cannot command, to see the disease increase, and death about to follow, from want of necessary succor. his charity had taken all possible precaution for procuring assistance to the sick of his order. he had directed that, if any of the brethren fell sick, the others should attend upon them, as they would wish to be themselves waited upon in like circumstances, and with more affection than a mother has for a beloved son. notwithstanding the great aversion he had to money, he required that the superiors should make application to their spiritual friends, to induce them to give coins, in order to assist the brethren in their sickness. but, as he foresaw that this measure might not always be successful, and that poverty in such a case would put it out of the power of the superiors to procure what was absolutely necessary for the sick, he pointed out to the brethren what perfection called upon them to do: "if one of the brethren, in health or in sickness, finds himself unable, through poverty, to procure what his absolute necessities require, provided he has humbly applied to his superior for them for the love of god, let him bear with the privation, for the love of jesus christ, who sought for consolation, but found none. it is a suffering which, will be in his sight a substitute for martyrdom; if this should even increase his disease, he must not fear being guilty of suicide, for he has done all he ought to have done, by applying humbly to his superiors." the maxim is well grounded. st. chrysostom maintains, that to suffer generously the loss of all goods, as did holy job, is a species of martyrdom. st. bernard says the same thing of voluntary poverty, and remarks that, in the beatitudes, a similar reward is promised to the poor and to martyrs. on those principles, is not a friar minor to be looked upon as a martyr, who, having embraced the strictest poverty, for the love of jesus christ, would, rather than contravene it, endure with patience every evil, and even death, and would generously make to god the sacrifice of his health and of his life, in order to practise this virtue to his last breath? st. augustine affirms that a christian suffers martyrdom in his bed, when he declines procuring his cure by forbidden means: thus, a sick friar minor, who has not the necessary assistance, brought about by his having embraced poverty, according to the evangelical counsel, is a martyr to poverty. even supposing that it was less owing to poverty, than to the neglect or harshness of his superior, that he was without assistance, he would equally have gained the crown promised to this description of martyrdom, since it would be as an evangelical pauper that he would suffer and die. but woe to that superior who should procure him such a crown! he would be like to those who have made so many martyrs in the persecution of the church. when st. francis learnt that his brethren, by the sanctity of their lives, and by the efficacy of their preaching, brought back numbers of sinners into the paths of truth, and enkindled in their breasts the love of god, he said that such intelligence was to him as most pleasing odors and precious perfumes, by which he was wholly embalmed; and, in his spiritual joy, he loaded these holy and edifying religious with the most ample benedictions. on the other hand, he fulminated dreadful maledictions against such as dishonored religion by their conduct. "most holy lord," he would say, "may those who overthrow and destroy by their bad example what thou incessantly raisest up by the saintly brethren of the order, be accursed by thee and by the whole celestial choir, and also by me, thy little servant." any scandal given to little ones gave him so much affliction and heartsore, that he often might have died of it, if god had not supported him by interior consolations. one day, when he was suffering extreme grief on a subject of this nature, and was praying the father of mercies for his children, st. bonaventure informs us that he received the following answer: "poor little man, why do you disquiet yourself? because i have appointed you the pastor of this religion which i have established, are you unmindful that i am its principal protector? i gave you the direction of it, to you who are a simple man, in order that what i should do through you might be attributed, not to human industry, but to my favor. it is i who called those who have entered it; i will preserve them, and provide for their wants; i will substitute others for those who will die off; i will cause some to be born, in order to come into it; and whatever may occur to shake this religion, which is founded on strict poverty. i will assist by my grace, that it shall be always upheld." up to this day, the world has seen the verification of this prophecy. the order of friars minor has been powerfully attacked, and has still many enemies; nevertheless, it still subsists. to animate his brethren to perfection, he employed example, rather than precept. when he imposed punishments, if they appeared to him to be very severe, he took them also on himself. having sent brother ruffinus to preach at assisi without his hood, because he had sought to be excused from preaching, he reflected on the severity of this order, and went himself to the church where ruffinus was preaching. the latter having left the pulpit to give it up to francis, he began his discourse, and instilled into his audience so much compunction, that it was evident that god had blessed the obedience of the disciple and the example of the master. this admirable preceptor taught no virtues which he did not himself practise in an eminent degree; and as those which are exterior make the greatest impression, he practised extreme austerity, in order that the others should imitate him. having noticed, on a certain occasion, that some of his brethren had relaxed from the extreme poverty of their nourishment, he thus slyly reprimanded them: "my brethren may well believe that, with so infirm a body as mine is, i require better nourishment than what i get, but i am obliged to be their model in everything; for which reason i propose to give up every alleviation, and to cast aside, with disgust, everything resembling delicacy; to be satisfied with little in everything; to make use of those things only which are the commonest, vilest, and most conformable to strict poverty." being in a hermitage in some mountains, in mid-winter, when the weather was rigorously cold and severe, his companions prepared a habit for him, in which they lined the breast, to make it somewhat warmer for him, but he made them take this out, saying: "i am placed here to give example to others; my life must be their rule. i know that there is no harm in wearing a warmer habit in the state i am in, but i see many of our brethren who require it as much as i do, and who could not get it. i must therefore bear this poverty with them, and not differ from them in anything, lest it should be thought that i take greater care of myself than of the others. they will more willingly bear the privation of these wants, when they shall see that i voluntarily go without aid." his three companions, the writers of his life, observed that he refused his body the most lawful indulgence, in order that his children should be ashamed of taking those which were less so; and that his maxim was, always to give instruction more by example than by discourse. he recommended his brethren, also, to preach by example, and, farther on, we shall see some beautiful sentiments in his maxims, relative to preaching. rodriguez, of the society of jesus, an excellent master of spiritual life, mentions, on this subject, a lesson which our saint gave to one of his religious, which we give here, in the very words of the talented academician, who translated the practice of christian perfection, of the pious author. st. francis, taking one day one of his religious with him, said:--"let us go and preach"; and thereupon he went out, and after having made a tour round the town, he returned to the convent. "but, father," said his companion, "are we not going to preach?" "we have done so already," replied the saint. it was the religious reserve which they had used in walking through the streets, which he considered to be an excellent sermon for the whole town. and, in fact, a mortified and humble exterior leads the people to piety and contempt of the world, it excites to compunction for sin, and raises the heart and desires to heavenly objects. it is a mute exhortation, which has often more effect than the most eloquent and sublime sermons. to example and precept, the holy patriarch added frequent and fervent prayers for the spiritual advancement of his children; well knowing that neither he who plants, nor he who waters, contributes to the fruit which the tree bears, but that the interior virtue which fructifies, comes from god. in fine, in order not to be wanting in anything which might be in his power, when his infirmities absolutely prevented his watching over the conduct of his children, he unceasingly exhorted the superiors to fulfil this duty with exactness, and he enforced it by the following powerful motive: that, if one of the brethren should be lost by their fault, they would be accountable for him to jesus christ on the day of judgment. st. francis, being ill at assisi, cured a spiritual wound of a more serious nature than that of a scruple. one of his children, named ricer, of bologna, provincial in the marches of ancona, a man of a very saintly life, had taken it into his head, at the suggestion of the devil, that the patriarch hated him, because he knew that he was to be damned, and he came to assisi, in the hopes that this thought would be dissipated, if the saint should receive him kindly. the saint, who had a revelation as to the state of his mind, and of his arrival at assisi, said to brothers masse and leo: "go and meet brother ricer, embrace him, and kiss him from me, and tell him that, among all my brethren in the world, i love him the most tenderly." they executed the commission given them, and ricer found himself strengthened in his faith, and filled with joy, and thanked god for the happy success of his journey. as soon as he appeared, francis, weak as he was, ran to him, and, embracing him, said, with paternal affection: "ricer, my dear son, you are, among all our brethren, he whom i love from the bottom of my heart;" and, after having made the sign of the cross upon his forehead, he gave him several kisses, and then added: "ricer, my dear child, this temptation was visited upon you for your greater good. but if you do not choose to be a gainer at this price, you will henceforward suffer no more from this temptation, nor from any other;" and from that time, he never had another. the holy patriarch had so tender a love for his brethren, that he could not bear that a shade of sorrowfulness should pass over their minds, lest they should lose their spiritual joy. "my dear brethren," he said to them, "entertain interiorly and exteriorly the holy joy which god gives. when his servants seek to obtain and preserve his spiritual joy, which has its source in purity of heart, in the fervor of prayer, and in other virtuous practices, the devils can do them no injury; and they say: 'we can do no injury to these servants of god; we have no entry to them; they are always joyful, whether in tribulation or prosperity.' but they are highly gratified when they can deprive them of this happy temper of mind, or, at least, lessen its intensity; because, if they can succeed in instilling any of their own venom into them, they will soon turn what has only the breadth of a hair into a beam, by adding something by little and little, unless we endeavor to destroy their work by the virtue of prayer, of contrition, of confession, and satisfaction. for this reason, my brethren, since spiritual joy comes from purity of conscience and the frequent exercise of fervent prayer, labor principally to acquire these two blessings, in order that you always possess it; i am very anxious to see it in you, and to feel it in myself. it is for the devil and his satellites to be sorrowful; but as to us, we can always rejoice in the lord." although the holy man had occasionally reason to be sorrowful, in consequence of the temptations to which he was exposed, or from the fear of the pains of hell, arising from the remembrance of his sins, yet he was ever gay. he was one day asked the reason of this, and he gave this answer: "my sins sometimes, indeed, make me very sorrowful, and satan would wish to imprint this sadness on me, in order to make me fall into slothfulness and weariness; but when that occurs, i look on my companion: the spiritual joy i see in him, renews mine, and the temptation passes off. my joy is a torment to the devils, for they envy me the favors i receive from god. i know and see that, when they cannot injure me by making me sorrowful, they endeavor to strip this spiritual joy from my companions, and, if they cannot succeed either with them or with me, they retire in confusion." we must notice, in this answer of the holy father, two sorts of sorrow: the one arising from the anguish caused by sin, of which st. paul says, that "it is according to god, and works penance unto salvation." this does not do away with spiritual joy; on the contrary, it produces it: nothing is sweeter, or more consoling, than the tears shed from the impulse of sincere contrition. the other sorrow is a depression of spirits, brought about by the devil, who endeavors to render us tepid and sluggish, to give us a disgust for pious exercises, and to induce us to give them up. a good conscience causes spiritual joy. no one has truly cause to rejoice, but he who is well with god, faithful to his law, and submissive to his will. a tranquil mind, free and disengaged from the tyranny of the passions, is, in the opinion of wisdom, a continual feast. it is true happiness: "for a happy life is nothing more," says st. augustine, "than the joy which is found in truth; that is, in god, who is truth, the sweet light of our souls, our salvation and our repose." therefore david excites the just of israel to manifest their joy, and st. paul said to the christians: "rejoice always in the lord; i say again, rejoice." what constitutes the kingdom of god is the justice, peace, and joy, which come from the holy spirit. this disposition of the heart enables it to resist the evil spirit, according to the words of esdras to the jewish people: "the joy of the lord is our strength." what can the evil spirit do against a soul whose sole pleasure is to serve god, who has no other solace than to love and praise him? there is, moreover, nothing which makes so great an impression on the people of the world, as witnessing the interior contentment of a truly good man, which is seen in the serenity of his countenance. this is, according to st. augustine, what compels them to admit that they themselves have not true joy, for that is reserved to god's servants. it was not alone by the ardor of his zeal, and the tenderness of his affection, that the holy founder led on his brethren, but by a wonderful discretion and prudence in the government of his order. although he used every endeavor to induce his religious to live austerely, he, nevertheless, recommended them to be guided by moderation; he did not countenance indiscreet penances. brother sylvester, the first priest in his order, having fallen into an illness of languor, brought on by excess in his mortifications, had a wish to eat some grapes: francis, having been informed of it, hastened to procure him this relief. he took him, as well as he could, into the vineyard of one of his friends, which was near the convent, and, having made him sit down near a plant of vine, he blessed it, and ordered him to eat the grapes, and ate some with him. as soon as the sick man had eaten of them, he found himself perfectly cured, and he frequently afterwards related the circumstance to his brethren, with tears in his eyes, as a proof of the love the holy father bore to his children; it was, also, an effect of his discretion, for, disapproving of sylvester's excessive austerities, he chose that he should take this sort of remedy, which nature seemed to call for, and it pleased god to render this the subject of a miracle. this prudent and charitable father came to know, one night, that one of his children who had fasted too rigidly, could not take repose, in consequence of the hunger which oppressed him. not to leave him in so deplorable a state, he sent for him, offered him some bread, and pressed him to eat of it, eating some himself first, to give him confidence. the religious got over the shyness he at first felt, and took the nourishment he so greatly required, being well pleased to have been relieved from the peril his life was in, by the prudence and kindness of the saint, and to see so edifying an example. in the morning, francis assembled his brethren, and having told them what had occurred in the night, said:--"brethren, take a precedent from this, not as to what i ate, but that i had recourse to, what was charitable." then he pointed out to them that virtue should always have discretion for its rule and for its guide; not that discretion which the flesh inspires, but that which has been taught by jesus christ, whose most holy life is the finished model of all perfection. "let each man," he continued, "have regard to his constitution. if some of you are strong enough to support life well, while eating very little, i do not wish, on that account, that one who requires more nourishment, shall imitate them in this respect: such a one might give his body what is necessary for it; for, as in eating, we are obliged to avoid whatever is superfluous, which is hurtful to the body and soul, so also we must guard against excessive abstinence, and the more so because the lord requires mercy rather than sacrifice. this is what god says by the prophet osee, which means that he prefers the practice of works of mercy to our neighbor, to the exterior exercise of religion; and that this worship which must be rendered him, is not pleading to him without mercy. now, as we are commanded to love our neighbor with a love of charity, st. thomas teaches us, as does st. augustine, that the same love obliges us to have a similar regard for our own body; from whence it follows that, this charity not being found in immoderate abstinence, god does not approve of the sacrifice. to this we may add, that it is sometimes the devil who instigates a person to undertake immoderate fasting, in order to render that person incapable of spiritual exercises, and for other evil intentions." the holy founder cautioned his brethren to avoid excess in fasting, even more than excess in eating, because he knew that they were all animated by the spirit of mortification. their fervor was so great that, in fasting very rigorously, they at the same time wore iron girdles, coats of mail, coarse hair-shirts, and took severe disciplines, which brought on frequent illnesses. for this reason he often recommended discretion to them. "my brethren," he said, "if a servant of god gives his body what is reasonable for its nourishment and for its repose, and if the body is nevertheless sluggish, lazy, sleepy at prayer, in watchings, and other good works, it must, then, be chastised, and treated as a horse that refuses to work, or an ass that won't go on, although they are well fed. but, if the body is deprived of its real wants, it is disabled from bearing the yoke of penance, and performing the functions required by the soul; it has, then, every right to complain." we shall, perhaps, be surprised that st. francis, who preaches discretion so admirably to his brethren, should have carried his own austerities to excess; but we must bear in mind that he was a man, guided in all things by the holy spirit, in whom god was pleased to show the abundant riches of his grace, and whose prodigious penitential exercises were to draw down an abundance of mercy on sinners. thus, what appeared excesses in his mortifications, arose from his perfect fidelity to the extraordinary impulse he received from above; and this is true prudence. fervent persons are occasionally found who would wish to imitate the fastings and other austerities of the saints, but this is presumption, unless they are called thereto by god, and unless the vocation has been well sounded and approved by legitimate authority. the general and safe maxim, in cases of austerities, is not to undertake anything extraordinary, without the consent of superiors and confessors. before granting any permission of this nature, the constitution and character of the person must be carefully examined, and inquiry minutely made whether the applicant practises regularly the ordinary mortifications, and if he is as zealous in controlling his passions and acquiring the virtues requisite in his station, as for the maceration of his body; for it is often found that those who solicit extraordinary penances, neglect those which are ordinary and common, and who, in mortifying their bodies, do not take sufficient pains to purify their hearts, to become humble, obedient, mild, and charitable. it may not, perhaps, be believed that the holy patriarch carried his discretion and condescension even to the buildings and the habits,--he who advocated extreme poverty on these two articles. he had carefully recommended to his brethren to build only small, low houses, surrounded only by hedges, in remote and solitary situations; but, as his own companions tell us, he admitted that in towns, and near towns, it was proper to act otherwise; that, in consequence of the number of religious who were there for the service of the faithful, it was necessary to have the convent surrounded by walls. his companions also say that he allowed those who required it, to wear a softer and warmer tunic; on this sole condition, however, that the outward garment should be very poor, to keep up the spirit of humility by the contempt the world entertains for such as are poorly clothed. finally, the same authors testify that, although he was very austere from the moment of his conversion, to his death, with a constitution very delicate and weak, yet he prudently moderated the austerities of his brethren; and that many things which he rigidly refused himself, he allowed to the others, from discretion and from charity. this, indeed, is characteristic in the saints; severe and inflexible to themselves, they spared their neighbors, and were indulgent in their regard; while hypocrites, such as the pharisees, and certain heretics who resemble them, put heavy burdens on the shoulders of others, which they are unable to carry; overwhelm with austerities those whom they direct, often for the most trifling faults, while they themselves live in comfort and at their ease. the discretion of st. francis was apparent in every part of his conduct. bernard de besse, one of the writers of his life, and secretary to st. bonaventure, says that he never spoke to his brethren but in terms of moderation and mildness; that he compassionated the weak, and encouraged the young in the practice of virtue; that he had great respect for old age; that whatever faults a priest might commit, he never reprimanded him but in private; in fine, that he had proper consideration for all those whose birth, merit, or dignity required it. brother guy, who was beatified by the holy see, and of whom we have before spoken, begged the saint to allow him to build a cell in the fissure of a rock which was opposite to the convent of celles, near cortona, in order that he might live there in great solitude, and give himself up to contemplation. francis, who knew that guy, although he was only in the novitiate, had the virtue of the ancients, and would raise himself up to an eminent degree of sanctity, permitted him this peculiar retreat, but upon this condition, that it was not to prevent him from attending all the offices said by the community, in order to preserve the uniformity of the observance, and to obviate the illusion which might mix itself up with unusual practices. this was also what the saint himself practised; he quitted regularly his contemplation, to join in singing the praise of god in community. st. bonaventure says that some of his religious asked him one day if he thought it proper that persons who were already learned, when they were admitted into the order, should continue to study the holy scriptures? to which he replied: "this is very pleasing to me, provided they follow the example of jesus christ, whom we find to have prayed more than he seems to have read." a novice, to whom the vicar-general had allowed the particular use of a psalter, came to solicit francis' confirmation of this permission, and this is the reply he got: "charlemagne, orlando, and other great captains, rendered themselves illustrious by their exploits; the martyrs are celebrated in the church by their sufferings and death; but there are others who aspire to glory by the sole reading of the feats of these persons." the saint intended to give him to understand that no one is estimable unless by his actions and conduct, and that there is nothing more vain than a reputation grounded on fruitless science. doubtless the holy patriarch wished his brethren to have psalters and breviaries, since they were obliged to say the divine office. he knew, also, that books were necessary for them, to enable them, by study, to be capable to instruct their neighbors, according as their vocation required, for he himself read the scriptures. but he did not approve that any one should have a book for his own peculiar use. all study which is entered upon more through vanity than piety, and less to gain souls to god than to gain for oneself the praise of man, was his abhorrence.--he said of those whose desire for learning was out of curiosity: "in the day of tribulation, they will find nothing in their hands. it would be better that they should labor now to improve themselves in virtue, in order to have the lord on their side at that time; for the time will come, when books will be thrown aside as useless. i do not choose that my brethren shall be curious in learning and books; what i wish is, that they be well grounded in humility, simplicity, prayer, and poverty, our mistress. it is the only sure way for their salvation, and for the edification of their neighbor, because they are called to imitate jesus christ, who followed and pointed out this path. many will forsake this path, on pretence of edifying other men by their knowledge; and it will turn out that understanding the scriptures, by which alone they fancied themselves filled with light, devotion, and the love of god, will be the cause of their remaining cold and empty. thus, in consequence of having, in pursuit of vain and useless literature, lost the time which ought to have been given to living according to the spirit of the state they had embraced, they will not have it in their power to return to their primitive vocation." st. francis looked upon the ministry of preaching as the most agreeable sacrifice which could be offered to the father of mercies; this is also the grand idea which st. paul entertains of it, when he says: "god has given me the grace that i should be the minister of jesus christ among the gentiles, sanctifying the gospel of god, that the oblation of the gentiles may be made acceptable, and sanctified by the holy ghost." st. chrysostom concludes from this, that preaching is a sacrifice; that the preacher is the priest; that an attentive and devout audience is the victim; that the word of god is the sword which immolates, spiritually, and the grace of the holy ghost the fire which consumes. what exalted sentiments must not a preacher entertain, in exercising this sort of priesthood; and with what spirit of devotion should not those attend who are thus holily immolated! the ardor of his love for jesus christ, and his great zeal for the salvation of souls, made him esteem all preachers very venerable. his intention was, that some of his order should be brought up to that duty, and that they should be respected by the others, because it is they who instil life, who combat the infernal enemy, and who enlighten the world. but he desired that they should exercise their ministry in a spirit of charity, even more by example, by prayers, and tears, than by eloquent discourses. "i desire," he said, "that these ministers of the word of god should apply themselves solely to spiritual exercises, and let nothing turn them from this; for, as they are chosen by the great king to declare his will to the people, it is requisite that they should learn, in the privacy of prayer, what they are to make known in their sermons; and that they should be interiorly warmed, in order to make use of language which shall kindle fire in the hearts they address. those who make use of their own lights, and who savor the truths they preach, are very praiseworthy; but it is a bad division when all is given to preaching, and little or nothing to devotion. as to those who sell their labors for the oil of approbation, such persons excite my pity." "they are true brethren, whom i call knights of the round table, who hide themselves in solitary places, to have better opportunities of devoting themselves to prayer, and whose sanctity, well known to god, is sometimes unknown to men, or even to their brethren. one day they will be presented by angels to the lord, who will say to them: 'my beloved children, here are the souls that have been saved by your prayers, by your tears, by your good example. receive now the fruit of the labors of those who only make use of their learning for this object. because you have been faithful over a few things, i will set you over many.' they will thus enter into the joy of the lord, loaded with the fruit of their virtues; while the others, who have employed themselves in studying the way of salvation, in order to teach it, without following it themselves, will appear naked and empty-handed at the tribunal of jesus christ, having on them marks of grief and confusion." all that st. francis says against vain learning,--a learning which is ostentatious and void of devotion,--is founded on the beautiful words of our saviour: "many will say to me on that day, lord, lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and then i will profess unto them, i never knew you, depart from me you that work iniquity;" and on these of st. paul: "if i speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, i am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." "i chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when i have preached to others, i myself should become a castaway." but it may not be concluded from this that the holy patriarch had any wish to prevent his brethren from studying and becoming learned; for, st, he was not unaware of what st. augustine teaches on that head. that learning is good in itself; that it is a gift of god; that it is most useful, when charity employs it; that it serves as a guide to piety; and that, when it has the holy scripture for its object, it powerfully excites to the love of god. how many learned men there are in whom humility, simplicity, and all the other virtues, are combined with deep reading! d. he positively declared, as has been reported upon the evidence of st. bonaventure that he was well pleased that his brethren should study; it was his wish that schools should be opened in his order, and he himself, as has been already noticed, instituted st. anthony of padua lecturer in theology. d. he wished to have his brethren apostolical men, employed in the holy ministry for the salvation of souls, and he had inserted in his rule a chapter which solely relates to the instruction of preachers. he desired, in consequence, that the friars minor should acquire the learning requisite for fulfilling their functions, which, in the ordinary course of things, is impossible without study. "it was, certainly, his intention," adds st. bonaventure, "that his brethren should apply themselves to the study of the holy scriptures, for, one day, having but one copy of the new testament, he divided it into leaves, which he distributed among them, that all might read and instruct themselves at the same time." the holy doctor maintains, in another place, that there are no religious who, by their position, are more employed in preaching than the friars minor; and he adds, that, as st. francis required them to be correct and accurate in their discourses, it is clear that he himself obliges them to study, since, without such application, it is impossible to be accurate. if the blessed founder has spoken more of humility and piety than of learning and study, it is, in the first place, because he well knew that, naturally, persons are more prone to learn than to practise; and, secondly, because the virtues which purify the heart, are gifts more precious and necessary than learning, which only enlightens the mind; and, in the third place, because he knew what st. paul says, that "knowledge puffeth up," that a learned person easily becomes proud and presumptuous, if charity does not keep him in humility, and in mistrust of himself. finally, let not his words be misconstrued to give color, under pretence of piety, to laziness and ignorance. he preferred, to vain and sterile learning, the humility and simplicity of the poor brethren, who spent their time in prayer: this was no more than right. "a rustical holiness," st. jerome remarks, "is more valuable than vicious learning and criminal eloquence." but the blessed patriarch only spoke of the lay-brethren, who were not intended for the sacred ministries, or of those clerics whose talents were not equal to being employed in them, and whose occupations were limited to prayer and labor. in respect to the others, who, by study, might render themselves capable of serving their neighbor spiritually, he certainly would have censured them, had they continued in ignorance, even under the pretext of prayer and manual labor,--he, who had adopted, as we have seen, the maxim, that "nothing is preferable to the salvation of souls." he well knew that all the brethren did not resemble some among them whom god had supernaturally enlightened, and who, without any other aid than that of prayer, had sufficient light to be able to announce the word of god. st. jerome says, that as a man of talent must not persuade himself that holiness consists in the beauty of his composition, and in the ornament of eloquence, so also a simple and unpolished man must not imagine that his ignorance constitutes him a saint. this is even still clearer, when this man may not be ignorant. now, it is self-evident that a friar minor, cleric, or priest, is obliged, in conscience, according to the talent he has received from heaven, to study carefully, in order to be competent to fulfil properly the ministries of preaching and of the confessional; since the spirit of his vocation, and of his order, is to labor for the salvation of souls. but he must always have before his eyes what his blessed father wrote to st. anthony of padua: "i agree that you should teach the brethren sacred theology, in such manner, however, that the spirit of holy prayer be not extinguished, either in yourself or in others, according to the rule of which we have made profession." while the holy patriarch was ill at sienna, a religious of the order of the friars preachers, who was a doctor of theology, and a truly learned man, put several very difficult questions to him: he answered them so learnedly, and so clearly, that the doctor was quite surprised, and spoke of the circumstance with admiration. truly, said he, the theology of this holy father is an eagle, which soars to a great height; it is raised up, as if with wings, by the purity of the heart, and by contemplation, while our knowledge is as that of animals which crawl on the ground. thus, according to st. athanasius, the great anthony, who was illiterate, showed admirable knowledge in his controversy with the heretical arians, and in his replies to pagan philosophers who strove to puzzle him. so also, according to the testimony of sulpicius severus, no one explained the holy scriptures more clearly than the celebrated bishop of tours, st. martin, who had never studied. another friar preacher asked st. francis how he was to understand these words of the saviour to the prophet ezekiel: "if thou speakest not to the impious that he may be converted from his wicked way and live, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but i will require his blood at thy hand." the humble father having at first excused himself! saying that he should apply to learned theologians to learn the sense of the holy scriptures; but, as the religious urged him, nevertheless, to give his opinion, and expressed a great wish to have it preferably to that of others whom he had consulted, he gave him this answer: "i believe these words, if taken in the full extent, to mean, that the servant of god must be by holiness, and the good odor of his life, a torch which burns and enlightens, in order that the splendor of his example may be as a voice which censures the impious; for this is the way to warn and reprehend them all: if he act otherwise, and scandalize his neighbor, he will not escape the punishment of heaven." st. francis was not ignorant that the literal and immediate sense of this passage is, that pastors, and all those who are in authority, are obliged to instruct, warn, censure, and correct those who are committed to their charge; that they become guilty of the loss of souls, if they are silent when they ought to speak. he himself, faithful in the mission he had received from god and the holy see, never ceased from exhorting his brethren to sanctify themselves, and from urging sinners to be converted; but he found in the above passage a more extended sense, and one of greater moral influence, which was, to preach by example; and he adhered to this for many reasons:-- . because words produce small effect when they are not backed by example. . because there are a greater number of superiors who instruct and censure, than of those who edify by example. . because the number of persons who have no right to instruct and reprove, is the greater, and it is good that they should know that god will call them to account for the good example which it was their duty to have given, which might have contributed to the conversion of sinners. all this shows how solid and proper the saint's reply was. his style is plain, because he formed it on the gospel, from which he would not in any degree deviate--besides that, his was not the age of elegant latinity; but in all that he has written we do not find anything that is not clear and intelligible--there are even passages insinuating and persuasive: we have also reason to admire some parts which are beautiful from their simplicity. let the cleverest men read his description of the rich sinner on his death-bed, and he will be obliged to admit that it would be impossible to draw a more natural or more striking portrait. he had so completely the talent of persuasion, that neither popes, cardinals, nobles, nor any other persons could resist his appeals; whatsoever he wished, they complied with. it is not easy, for the sake of piety, to persuade to that which is contrary to the interests of a family: nevertheless, st. francis succeeded in this. the following is an example, which, relating only to a very common subject, we, notwithstanding, select, because it contains wholesome instruction:-- the saint was one day sweeping in a country church, according to his usual practice, when a man, whose name was john, and who was ploughing in an adjoining field, came and took the broom from his hands, and after having swept the whole church, he said to him: "brother, what i have heard of you and of your brethren, has inspired me with an idea of serving god as you do. i did not know how to come to you, but, since it has pleased god that i should find you here as i had wished, i offer myself to you: do with me as you please." francis, knowing by an interior light, that this man had been sent him by the lord, resolved to receive him into his order, and after having instructed him in the rule, he said to him: "if you resolve upon joining this institute, you must renounce all you have, and give it to the poor." john went immediately to his plough, unyoked the oxen, and brought one to francis, saying: "i have been long in the service of my father, and i maintain the family by my labor; i think i may take this ox for my reward, and do with it as you shall direct me." he immediately went home to take leave of his parents, and desired them to take care of the plough. the parents, alarmed when they learnt his intention, ran in despair to the church, where francis still was, and conjured him not to take a man from them who was so useful in work, who earned their means of living. he replied with mildness, and then said that he would come to dine with them, and sleep at their house, and would endeavor to console them. he went, and after dinner, addressing himself to john's father, he said: "my dear host, your son wishes to serve god, and it is god who has inspired him with this thought. this ought not to give you any displeasure; on the contrary, it ought to be gratifying to you, and you should give god thanks that he has been pleased to select one of your family for his service. this will be no small gain to you; for, in place of this son whom you give up, you will gain as many children and brethren as there are religious in the order he is about to join. moreover, your son is one of god's creatures; and if god has destined him for himself, who shall dare to resist his will? who shall say to him, 'why dost thou do thus?' he is all-powerful, and he is also just. he only asks for what belongs to him. may his will therefore be done, and may his mercy be extended to your son, whom i cannot and ought not to refuse to receive into the house of god, which he so anxiously wishes me to do. all that i can, and will do for you, is, to inform him to leave you the ox he had destined for the poor, according to the gospel, and that, abandoning to the world what belongs to the world, he come stripped of everything, to throw himself into the arms of jesus christ." this reasoning was so convincing to the parents, that they assented willingly and cheerfully to their son's leaving them, whom before they thought they could not part with. human prudence will not fail to say that he ought to have remained with his parents, to provide for their subsistence by his labor; but will it say that james and john, being called by jesus christ, ought not to have left zebedee, their father, who was poor, and whom they maintained by their fishing? our lord, in calling them, desired that they should obey his voice, and leave to providence to provide for the subsistence of their father. st. francis well knew that, under any other circumstances, this laborer would have been bound to work to provide for his parents; but, as he knew that his call was from god to a religious state of life, he wisely judged that the lord would assist the family by some other means, and that the vocation ought to be followed. the supernatural and miraculous gifts which st. francis had received from god, gave great weight to his discourses. a man, who casts out devils, who raises the dead to life, who cures the sick, whose prophecies are verified, who discovers spirits, who commands animals, and makes them obey him,--a man who performs these prodigies, and many others, is listened to as if he were an angel, when he speaks. the polish of language which st. francis neglected, was wonderfully compensated by divine power. st. bonaventura says that the holy ghost, from whom he had received his unction and his mission, inspired him with abundance of words to preach his holy doctrine, and continually assisted him; and that jesus christ, who is the strength of the father, came invariably to his aid; that, indeed, he had recourse to the ornaments of human eloquence, in his discourses, but that inspiration was very perceptible; that his preaching was a great fire, which penetrated quite to the bottom of hearts, with so much efficacy, that the most obdurate were softened, and had recourse to penance. men and women, young and old, nobles and plebeians, flocked in crowds to see and hear this extraordinary man, whom god had sent them. he seemed to them, in fact, to be a man from the other world, when they saw him, with his eyes elevated to heaven, with the view of drawing them thither; and, as soon as he spoke, they felt their hearts moved to compunction. all that he said against the public scandals, was received with respect; those whose crimes he censured, whatever confusion they might feel from it, did not dare complain--not even those in the highest station. some of the learned were likewise noticed amongst his auditory, and they, more than any others, admired the powerful influence of his discourses, knowing him to be a man who had not gone through any course of study. in short, the public was so charmed by hearing him, that, after preaching one day at cortona, and wishing to return to the convent of celles, the guards at the gates of the town would not let him pass. after having preached for three successive days there he only got leave to go, after the strongest entreaties, and after having promised to leave brother guy there, whose sanctity he assured them would free cortona from many evils. god punished, in a most frightful manner, an insolent young girl, who was making a noise with a sort of drum during the saint's sermon; he called upon her three times to be quiet, but she laughed at him, and he was then inspired to say, in a loud voice, "devil, take what is thy own." at the same moment the girl was raised up into the air, and she was seen no more. by this dreadful example, god proposed to teach them the respect they were bound to have for the instructions which his servants teach them, as once he taught the faithful not to lie to the holy ghost, by the deaths of ananias and sapphira, which followed the reproach which st. peter had made them. st. bonaventure assures us that the gift of prophecy appeared in our saint with great splendor; that not only did he foretell things to come, but also spoke of those things which were happening in his absence, as if they were present before his eyes; that he penetrated to the bottom of hearts, and saw the most secret recesses of consciences, so that it might have been said that he inspected the mirror of eternal light, and that its admirable splendor uncovered to him what was most hidden. god revealed to him, in prayer, the loss of one of the religious, who had the reputation of being a saint, but who was so peculiar in everything, that, in order the more rigidly to keep silence, he usually confessed by signs. the blessed father having come to the convent in which this religious was, he saw him, and spoke of him to the others, who were loud in their praises of him. "brethren," said he, "cease all these praises, and give them not to inventions of the devil; know that all this is but a temptation, and an extraordinary illusion." the brethren could not persuade themselves that so many marks of perfection were but covers to imposture; but, a few days after, this pretended saint left the order, which proved that st. francis had probed to the bottom of his soul. he knew, in the same manner, why another, who seemed to be adorned with every virtue, had thrown off the habit of the order; and he replied to his brethren who expressed their surprise at it: "do not be astonished, my brethren; this wretch is lost, because he was not grounded in humility, and in the fear of god. believe me that, without this foundation, it is fruitless to endeavor to become virtuous." of two religious who were returning from the terra di lavoro, he saw in spirit that the senior did not by any means edify his companion. on their arrival, he asked the younger what had occurred on the road, who then replied, that all had gone on well. "take care," answered francis, "take care, and don't say what is false, on pretence of humility. i know, i know; but wait a little, and you will see." in fact, the giver of scandal abandoned his vocation shortly after. the charitable father received, with great kindness, one of the brethren who had apostatized from the order, and now returned, he even gave him the kiss of peace. but, pointing out to him the gallows erected upon a height, at some distance, he said: "if the devil induce you to leave the order a second time, he will lead you to be hanged on the gallows which you see from hence." this weak penitent did not profit from this warning, but left the order again, and led a libertine life, was taken up for a robbery, and hanged on the spot pointed out. st. francis might have said of those, as st. john did of the apostates who left the church, "they went out from us, but they were not of us; for, if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us:" that is to say, that they were not firm in the christian religion. the knowledge of the human heart belongs to god alone; even the angels have it not unless imparted to them by his light, and he was pleased to communicate that light to francis. we have had several instances of this, but we must add the following: the blessed father, being at the hermitage of grecio, two of his brethren came, from a great distance off, urged by a strong desire to see him, and to receive his blessing, which they had long been desirous of. unfortunately, they reached the hermitage when he was retired to his cell, from which he did not come out to receive visits, and they could not see him. as they were going away, greatly disappointed, he came out, contrary to his usual custom, called them, and blessed them in the name of jesus christ, and made the sign of the cross upon their foreheads, as they had wished. humanly speaking, he could not have known that they were come, but he knew it in spirit, as well as if he had seen them. having restored peace, and performed some splendid miracles in a town, he left the place early in the morning, without having taken leave of the bishop, who had given him a most honorable reception. at a spot where three roads diverged, he did not know which one he ought to take, and desired brother masse, who was his companion, to turn round and round, no doubt to put his obedience to the test. when he began to be giddy, he ordered him to stop, and to follow the road which was before him. masse went first, and said to himself, "how uncivil! how simple! he not only has not taken leave of the bishop who received him with so much kindness, but he makes me turn round and round as a child." this interior murmuring did not last; these reflections followed: "how could i have so much pride as to despise a man who is so evidently beloved by god? fool that i am, i deserve to go to hell for daring to censure the actions of francis, through whom the lord works such wonders, and whom i ought to look upon as an angel. and, after all, what reason has he given me for censuring him? he left the town without having taken leave of the bishop, but it was to avoid fresh honors being shown him; he made me turn round and round, but he made me take the right road." then francis exclaimed: "ah, brother masse, how different are these feelings from those first entertained! from whence do these come, and from whence did those others arise?" masse, seeing that his thoughts were discovered, threw himself at the saint's feet, and solicited his pardon. a particular gift which francis received from god, was the control of animals. he gave them his commands, and they obeyed him, they did whatever he pleased; it was, moreover, noticed that they showed a sort of affection for him, and applauded what he did in their way. upon which two observations occur. the first is taken from st. bonaventure, who says that the state of innocence was represented in the power which god gave to his servant over animals. adam, just and innocent, had absolute control over them, and he exercised it in giving to each of them its proper name, when god made them pass before him, as we read in genesis. his sin caused him to lose his privilege, with all the others which had been attached to this happy state; and we experience, as he did, the revolt of the animals, in punishment of his having disobeyed god. but when an eminent sanctity has brought men more to original justice, and has, in some measure, reestablished them in a state of innocence, it has sometimes pleased the almighty to restore them to some of the privileges which man enjoyed in those times, and, in particular, this control over animals. this is what is seen in well-authenticated acts of many saints, and, in what st bonaventure relates of st. francis, on the testimony of ocular witnesses, as well as on the evidence of facts which were of public notoriety. the second thing which deserves notice is, that, when this holy man compelled animals to obey him, and when they appeared to be attached to him, it never occurred but when it was to give authority to the word of god, to do some good to a neighbor, to give a salutary lesson, or to excite to the practice of some virtue, as we shall now see. it is another proof that these marvels had their source in god, who proposes, in all he does, some end worthy of his wisdom. francis left assisi one day, to go to preach, not having any longer a doubt but that he and his brethren were called for the service of souls, after the mission they had received from god, and from the supreme pontiff; this was confirmed by supernatural lights, as we have seen above. being near to the town of bevagna, he saw on a particular spot a number of birds collected, of various species, and he went up to them, and said: "my sisters, listen to the word of god; you have great reason to praise your creator; he has covered you with feathers; he has given you wings wherewith to fly; he has placed you in the air, where the breathing is so pure; and he provider you with everything which is necessary, without giving you any trouble." while he was thus speaking and saying other similar things, the birds remained where they were, turning towards him, and those which were perched on the branches of trees, bending their heads, as if to listen to what he said. it was a curious thing to observe the joy they appeared to feel and make known by their motions; they stretched their necks, they spread their wings, opened their beaks, and looked anxiously at the zealous preacher, who walked about in the midst of them, and sometimes touched them with his habit, without any of them stirring. they only took to flight after he had given them leave, and made on them the sign of the cross, to bless them. it was god's intention to honor the ministry of the saint, in the eyes of his companions, by this miracle, which they witnessed, and the circumstances of which they communicated to st. bonaventure. it was also to show the attention which ought to be given to the truths of salvation; and this is the reason why francis, in turning to them, said, with admirable candor: "i am very neglectful in not having as yet preached to the birds." he observed, by this apparent simplicity, which was full of good sense, that men often fail to listen to the preachers, as the birds had seemingly listened to him; in the same sense in which st. martin had said, when complaining of the insensibility of the men of his times: "they do not attend to me, though the serpents obey me." this means that, with the aid of reason and grace, they will not do what unreasonable animals necessarily do, by the impulse of divine power. but why preach to birds? will the sages of this age ask; but why did david say what the church repeats daily in her divine office? "whales, and all that move in the waters, bless the lord. all ye beasts and cattle, fowls of the air, bless the lord." the three young men who were in the furnace at babylon, said the same thing. a heart full of love and gratitude would wish that all creatures should have hearts and tongues, to glorify the author of their being; he knows that even the beasts praise him by the marks they bear of his power, wisdom, and goodness; in seeing them, in speaking to them, he commemorates his sovereign greatness. on leaving bevagna, francis went to preach in the borough of alviano, and not being able to make himself heard, in consequence of the noise the swallows made, who had their nests there, he spoke these words to them: "swallows, my sisters, you have made yourselves heard long enough; it is now my turn to speak. listen, then, to the word of god, and keep silence while i preach." immediately, as if they had understood what he said, they ceased their noise, and remained where they were, to the end of his sermon. the fruit of this miracle was to revive the fervor and piety of the assembly, who glorified god, and listened to the preacher with wonderful deference. the circumstance was soon spread, and produced everywhere a similar effect. st. bonaventure, who gives us this anecdote, adds, that, some time afterwards, a scholar at paris, who was of good conduct, having been interrupted in his studies by the chirping of a swallow, said to his companions: "this is one of those who interrupted the blessed francis in his sermon, and which he silenced;" having then addressed the swallow, he said, with great faith: "in the name of francis, the servant of god, i order you to be silent and to come to me." it was instantly silent, and came to him; in his surprise he let it go, and was not again troubled by it. it was thus it pleased god to honor the name of his servant. other examples are found in the saint's life, of the power he exercised over animals, when, by their noise, or by any other means, they interrupted his sermons or prayers, as on his return from syria, near the lagunes of venice, where he saw a great number of birds who were singing. he went into the midst of them to say his office, with his companions, but the noise the birds made prevented their hearing each other; francis, upon that, ordered them to cease singing, till he had finished his office, and, in fact, says the holy doctor, the author of his life, from that moment they ceased their chirping until the office, being finished, he gave them leave to resume their song, which they did, as before. he took this opportunity to settle some of his religious there, to celebrate the praises of the lord, as has been before noticed, st. ambrose speaks of a circumstance as well known to all the world, that some of the faithful, having been assembled in a spot where the croaking of the frogs greatly disturbed them, a priest commanded them to be quiet, and to show respect for holy things, and that they immediately ceased from making any noise, and that these irrational animals respected what they were incapable of understanding. we have already seen that when francis was at grecio, he freed the country from the wolves which had ravaged it. at gubio, he tamed one in an extraordinary manner. he took it into the public square where he preached, and having pointed out to his auditors that god sends sometimes these carnivorous animals to warn sinners to return to their duties, he addressed the wolf, and made an agreement with it, the clauses of which were, that the inhabitants should feed it, and that the wolf should do no injury to any of them. this was faithfully attended to on both sides. during two years the animal came to the town to feed, and did no injury to any one. the holy man had tamed, in a similar manner, at carinola, a fox that stole all the poultry of a poor old woman, and from which she received no injury afterwards. similar traits are found in the lives of many saints, whose acts are admitted to be authentic and certain, by the most talented critics. st. athanasius remarks, in the life of st. anthony, that wild animals causing great damage in a field which he cultivated, he took one gently, and said to all the others, while speaking to the one he had caught: "why do you injure me, who never did you any harm? go, and in the name of the lord, never come here any more." the holy doctor adds, that from that time they were never again seen in that place, as if they had been afraid of disobeying him. sulpicius severus relates of st. martin, that he had an extraordinary control over all animals. resting himself one day with his disciples, on the bank of a river, he saw a snake swimming over, and he ordered it in the name of the lord to swim back again, upon which it was seen to return with as much speed as it had come. james, who wrote the life of st. columban, given by the learned father mabillon, after surius, states that the crows and the bears obeyed him, and that all the beasts of the field came at his call, in the same manner as those which are domesticated. it was in order to teach men to esteem and imitate a virtue which the lord caused to be respected, even by dumb animals. st. francis, when at rome, in , had always with him a little lamb, to remind him of the lamb of god, who chose to be sacrificed for us. when he was about to leave the eternal city, he confided the little animal to the care of the lady of septisal, the illustrious widow of whom we have often had occasion to speak. the little lamb, as if it had been trained to spiritual exercises by the holy man, followed this lady to church, stayed there, and returned with her, never leaving her. if she was behind her usual time of rising in a morning, it would go to her bed, where, by bleating or striking the bed with its head, or other motions, it seemed to call upon her to rise, and offer her grateful prayer to god. the lady was much attached to this lamb, and took care of it, says st. bonaventure, as a disciple of francis, which had become her instructor in devotion. a present was made to the holy father, at st. mary of the angels, of a sheep; he received it thankfully, because of the innocence and simplicity of which it was a symbol, and he said to it, as if it could understand him, that it was necessary it should assist at the praises of the lord, without incommoding the brethren; the sheep obeyed with great punctuality. when the religious went to the choir, to sing the office, the sheep went of itself to the church, placed itself at the foot of the altar of the blessed virgin, bent in its fore-legs, and bleated in a low tone, as if to pay its homage. it did the same at mass, when the host was elevated. st. bonaventure remarks, that this animal, by the respect it manifested during the celebration of the sacred mysteries, taught the christians the deep reverence with which they ought to assist at mass, and at the same time passed a deserved censure on those who are irreverent or indevout during its celebration. the smallest things raised the heart of st. francis to god, and he made use of them to create similar feelings in the hearts of his disciples. the chirping of a grasshopper, which was on a fig tree, near his cell, inspired him with fresh fervor; he called it, and it came to him directly, and he made it sing on his hand, which it began anew, whenever he required it. at the end of eight days he said to his companions: "let it now go; it has incited us long enough to praise god;" at the very moment the grasshopper flew away, and was seen no more. one day, as he was about to take his collation with brother leo, he felt himself interiorly consoled, on hearing a nightingale sing. he begged leo to sing the praises of god alternately with the bird; the latter having excused himself, alleging the badness of his voice, he himself responded to the bird, and continued to do so till night, when he was obliged to give over, acknowledging that the little bird had beaten him. he made it come upon his hand, and praised it for having sung so well, fed it, and it was only after he had desired it to leave him, and given it his blessing, that the nightingale flew away. in the impression which the power of god affected upon animals, in favor of st. francis, there was this further circumstance, which was marvellous: that they seemed to have an affection for him, and appeared pleased when they saw him. it is st. bonaventure who gives several examples of this. the servant of god, going to sienna, passed near a flock of sheep which were feeding in a meadow. he greeted them, as was his custom, with an air of kindness, and immediately the sheep, the rams, and the lambs, left their pasture, came to him, lifted up their heads to greet him in their manner, which was greatly wondered at by the shepherds and by his companions. hares and rabbits were presented to him, which had been caught alive; they were put before him on the ground, and they immediately sprang into his arms. although he gave them their liberty, they remained with him, and he was obliged to have them removed far off into the country, by some of his religious, and put in a place of safety. on the banks of the lake of rieti, a fisherman gave him a live water- fowl. after having kept it a little while, he tried to make it fly away, but in vain. he then raised his eyes to heaven, and remained for more than an hour in a state of ecstasy, after which he mildly ordered the bird to go away and praise the lord, and he gave it his blessing. the bird showed signs of pleasure by its motions, and flew away. on the same lake, a large fish which had been just caught, was presented to him; he held it for some time in his hand, and then put it back in the water. the fish remained in the same place, playing in the water before him, as if out of regard for him; it could not leave him, and did not disappear till it had received the saint's leave, together with his blessing. the first time that st. francis went to mount alverno, he was surrounded by a multitude of birds, which lit upon his head, on his shoulders, on his breast, and on his hands, evincing by their beaks and wings the pleasure his arrival caused them, which he noticed to his companions, as a mark of the will of god that he should remain in this mountain. when he came thither, and received the stigmata there, the birds greeted him in a similar manner; and a hawk, which could only have come thither by a supernatural impulse, attached itself peculiarly to his person. when the hour of the night drew near, at which francis rose to pray, the bird did not fail to come and make a noise at the door of his cell. this punctuality was very pleasing to the saint, because it caused him to be watchful; but when his infirmities were more severe than usual, the bird, well taught by him who controlled its movements, did not come to wake him till sunrise, and even then did not make so much noise as usual. the numerous miracles of st. francis attached men to him in a scarcely less degree than his extraordinary sanctity; and the gift he possessed of unbounded love--called for their admiration. this is the portrait we find of him in the legend we have before alluded to: "our blessed father was agreeable to all. joy, serenity, kindness, and modesty, were perceptible in his countenance. he was naturally mild and affable, compassionate, liberal, prudent, discreet, gave sound advice, was faithful to his word, and full of courage; he was easy in his manners, accommodating himself to all sorts of tempers; he was all to all, he was a saint among the saintly, and among sinners, as if he was one of them; his conversation was graceful, and his manner insinuating; clear in his reasoning, energetic and compliant in matters of business; and, finally, simple in his actions and words." these are qualifications well calculated to make their possessor beloved, particularly when joined, as in the case of st. francis, with the purest morals, with the most ardent charity, the most profound humility, and a countenance which seemed angelical. after the portrait of his mind, we find in the same narrative the following description of his person: "he was of middle size, neither short nor tall, but well shaped. his face was oval, his forehead smooth, his eyes black and modest, his mouth pretty; his hair was of chestnut color, his beard black, but scanty, his body very thin, his skin delicate, his speech pleasing and animated, his voice strong and piercing, but altogether mild and sonorous." we must receive in their true sense what was understood in saying that "he was simple in his actions and words." the term simplicity has two significations in english.--firstly it is used to describe a person of little mind, narrow-minded, dull, not well informed, weak and credulous; it is also used to express candor, ingenuousness, and uprightness; to describe a person who is natural, without artfulness. it is in this sense that it is said that the greatest geniuses are the most simple; enemies of subtlety and trick, which are only appropriate to narrow minds. the simplicity of the just, in scriptural language, is true virtue, solid without drawback, purity of heart, uprightness of intention; in opposition to every sort of duplicity or disguise--everything that st. paul calls "the prudence of the flesh; the wisdom of this world." st. gregory so explains it. this does not exclude prudence, but only malice and double dealing. our blessed lord warns us "to be prudent as serpents, and simple as doves." st. paul says: "i would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil." every christian must be simple in faith, submitting himself purely and simply to the decisions of the church, without any endeavor to elude them by crafty evasions, as some do in so scandalous a manner; simple in the intercourse of society, being frank and sincere, doing injury to no one; simple in devotion, going straight to god; following the way pointed out by the gospel; not resembling those of whom the wise man says: "they go two ways, and have two hearts," the one for god, and the other for the world. such was the simplicity of st. francis. he was simple because he had no other intention in his mind, no other movement in his heart, than to be conformed to jesus christ. in order to imitate his poverty, his humility, his sufferings, all his virtues, he did many things far above the ordinary rules of human wisdom; and, as to his language, it was formed on that of the gospel. st. francis was simple, but he had great qualities of mind and heart; and his simplicity was a perfection in him--not a defect. if it induced him to do things of which human prudence disapproves, it was because he was guided by divine light; it was because he sought to be despised by the world, to render himself more conformable to jesus christ. men of his age were not deceived by it; they discovered the principle which made him act and speak with such simplicity. his constant endeavor to humble himself, and draw on himself contempt, only gave them a greater esteem for his person, and they loaded him with honors. if our age deems itself wiser, what reason has it for not doing similar justice? may the tender holiness of st. francis, which we have endeavored to portray, excite all those who read his life to love god, and to manifest their love, not only by their actions, but by their patience in adversities! may they love him so, that the sweet violence of their ardent love separate them from all that is beneath the heavens, and wholly absorb them, may they be enabled to kneel in spirit at the side of st. francis and pray with him from the bottom of their heart: my god and my all! the end [illustration] no. . the blind beggar of jericho. by the author of "peep of day." london: john hatchard and son. . [illustration] the blind beggar of jericho. it is very common to see blind men begging in the streets. do not you pity the blind? how sad it must be never to see the light of the sun, nor the green leaves in spring, nor the faces of our dearest friends! a long while ago a blind man sat begging by the side of the road. as he sat he heard the noise of a great crowd walking along. he did not know why there was such a crowd, so he asked the people passing by why so many had come together. they told him that jesus of nazareth was passing that way. the blind man had heard before of jesus. he had heard that he could do great wonders, and he felt sure in his heart that jesus could make him see. but the blind man could not go to him--how could he dare to stir in such a crowd? he might have been pushed down and trodden upon and crushed to death. but he could speak. he cried out very loud, "have mercy on me, o lord." he did not cry out once or twice, he kept on crying out, hoping that jesus would hear him. but the lord took no notice of him, and a great many people came up to him and told him not to make such a noise. yet the poor man would not be quiet; he knew that the lord was passing by, and that he might soon be gone, and that he might never pass that way again, so he cried out more than ever, "lord, have mercy on me!" and did the lord take notice of him at last? yes, he did; he stood still, and told the people to bring that blind man to him. how kind it was in jesus to care for the blind beggar! jesus is very kind, and cares for every poor creature in the world. at last the blind man heard some one speak kindly to him, and say, "be of good comfort; rise, he calleth thee." how glad he was to hear that jesus had sent for him! he got up very quickly, and went to jesus, for now the people made room for him. no one now was rude to the poor beggar, for jesus had called for him. and what did jesus say to him? he asked him this question, "what do you wish me to do for you?" the man replied, "lord, that i may receive my sight." jesus pitied him very much, and he touched his eyes, and said, "receive thy sight." that moment he was able to see. how glad he now was that he had cried out, "lord, have mercy on me," and that he had not left off when the people told him not to make a noise! he would not leave jesus now he had found him, but went after him on the road, praising him, and thanking god for his goodness. if all people would pray as this blind man did, jesus would hear them all. the child who reads this book is not blind. if you were blind how could you read to father or to mother? but there is something which jesus could do for you, that would make you happy for ever. what is it? do you know? if he were to say, "what do you wish me to do for you?" what would you answer? i should like you to say, "forgive me my sins, and give me thy holy spirit." my dear child, do make this little prayer every day. jesus would hear you. perhaps you live in a very poor place. perhaps you live in a little room in town, up some dark and narrow stairs; perhaps there is very little furniture in it, and very little food in the cupboard, but jesus knows where you live, and he knows your name, and your father's name, and your mother's name, and he hears all you say. he would be much pleased to hear you praying to him, because he loves you, and he once died upon the cross that you might not go to hell. if you go to heaven you will see the blind beggar there--i mean the beggar who once was blind. then you will sing with him about the love of jesus in saving your souls. if you wish to read a full account of this blind man, you will find it in mark x. to end, and also in luke xviii. to end. when jesus christ was here below, and spread his works of love abroad, if i had lived so long ago, i think i should have loved the lord. jesus, who was so very kind, who came to pardon sinful men, who heal'd the sick, and cur'd the blind: oh, must not i have loved him then? but where is jesus? is he dead? oh, no; he lives in heaven above: "and blest are they," the saviour said, "who, though they have not seen me, love." he sees us from his throne on high as well as when on earth he dwelt; and when to him poor children cry, he feels such love as then he felt. and if the lord will grant me grace, much i will love him and adore; but when in heaven i see his face, 'twill be my joy to love him more. _jane taylor._ the end. macintosh, printer, great new-street, london. prayer. o father in heaven, thou hast made all things; the sun, moon, and stars, the land and sea. thou hast made me. thou hast taken care of me. i thank thee for all thy kindness. great god, thou art in every place; thou seest in the dark, as well as in the light; thou knowest all the naughty things that i have done, and said, and thought. o merciful lord, pardon my sins, because jesus christ, thy dear son, died upon the cross for sinners. give me thy holy spirit, that i may love thee, and obey thy laws. keep me from minding satan, and save me from going to hell: and whenever i die, o take my soul to heaven. when jesus comes with clouds, and with the holy angels, may i be glad to see him. may my dear parents, and brothers, and sisters, be happy with thee for ever and ever. may all people love thee, and speak of thy goodness. hear me for christ's sake. amen. transcriber's note * punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected. a choice of miracles by james a. cox _you're down in the jungle with death staring you in the face. there is nothing left but prayer. so you ask for your life. but wait! are you sure that's really what you want above all else?_ andy larson was a hard-headed swede. he had to be, to be still alive. he hadn't been able to move anything but that hard head for what he estimated to be about three hours since he regained consciousness. and in that time he hadn't heard anything that led him to believe anyone else had survived the crash. [illustration: hurt and helpless, larson waited for death.] the only thing andy larson had heard was the water and the far-away whine of the patrol ship on its grid track search pattern. it had not reached his area yet, and he wasn't at all excited about his chances of being spotted when it did get nearer. he could turn his head, and he could see the tangled interlacing of tree branches and vines above and around him. he remembered, at the first moment of impact, just before the ship began to break apart, a tremendous geyser of mud and water. the picture was indelibly imprinted on his mind. he couldn't see the water now, but he could hear it. the litter he could see by twisting his head as far to the left as it would go told him they had crash-landed on the water--a river by the sound of it--and had skipped drunkenly, in something approximating flat stone fashion, into the forest lining the river's bank. there had been no explosion and no fire, there was no wide swath cut through the trees--and therefore no reason why he should assume the patrol would spot him. there might be pieces of the ship lying where the patrol could see them. but he doubted that, for the river was deep and the vegetation was thick. * * * * * he strained his ears, not to hear if the patrol was approaching closer, but listening for the sound of life around him. this was his one hope--another survivor, and of necessity a mobile one. someone to shout and wave, to climb a tree, to find an open space and build a fire, to light a flare, to do something--anything--that would attract the patrol's attention. andy larson wasn't afraid of dying. he felt no panic, no agonies of conscience, remorse or bitterness at the apparent inevitability of the prospect before him. but if he was not destined to die he needed a miracle or the assistance of that almost impossible--but only almost--survivor. and instead of praying for the miracle, he listened with all the hearing power at his command for the sound of human life. that would be miracle enough, and he didn't intend to stop listening until he couldn't any more. not that he didn't pray at all; back home in new jersey, while not considered a pillar of the church, andy larson was known as a good, practicing lutheran. but it was doubtful if the lutherans, or any other sect for that matter, had sent missionaries this high into the heavens yet; the misbegotten flight he had been on had been only the fourth to reach this strange little planet of abernathy since its discovery by the good professor back in ' . so andy was no longer a practicing lutheran, if practicing meant going to church. but he had prayed more than once during the long outward journey. and he was praying now, while his ears strained for sounds and his eyes strained for movement; praying for himself, yes, but even more for his wife, and for someone he had never seen. he couldn't help being afraid for elsie; he had been gone from home almost seven months, and she had been rocked with morning sickness for the last three weeks before he left, moaning over her saltines and begging him not to go even though she knew he couldn't and would not back out. she was afraid of the unknown he was going into, and he was afraid of the unknown that awaited her--it was the first time for both unknowns for both of them. in a little while he could stop straining his eyes. greenish dusk was slipping into night. soon his ears would have to do all the work. the thought of night-prowling creatures disturbed him somewhat; no-one knew for sure yet what, if anything, lived in these thick, isolated jungles. paralyzed as he was, he was fair game--his choice of words in the thought brought a grimacing smile to his face. he tried once again--was it the thousandth time yet?--to move his arms, his legs, his hands, a finger, a toe. earlier, he had thought he was moving the big toe on his left foot, but he couldn't raise his head to see past the twisted bulk of metal that lay across him, the toe had nothing to rub upon to give it feeling, and there was absolutely no feeling between it and his head to give it any meaning anyhow. but it would have been a nice feeling just to know it was still there. he gave up the attempt when sweat beaded out on his forehead and went back to listening and praying. he was tempted to pray for the miracle now, for blackness blotted out even the pitiful remains of the ship, and the whine of the patrol had muted to a singing hum in the distance. * * * * * the night turned cold and damp, but andy larson, in his sheathing of paralysis, didn't feel it. the loneliness was on him, the awesome loneliness of having to wait for death alone, with no warm hand to hold on to until the parting. he still felt no great fear or bitterness. only the loneliness, and sadness. he would never know his son, or daughter, would never know that it loved him, that he was the biggest thing in its life. and it--that was ugly; he would call it "he"; if he had a choice a son it would be--he, his son, would never know his father, or how much his father wanted to love him. and elsie--how lonely it would be for her. her time must be getting close now, and she would be frightened. the doctor hadn't told her what he had told him--that she was too slight, definitely not built for child-bearing. but she knew. and she would be brave, but frightened and alone. the hours of night trudged by. the few stars that peeped through the trees were no help in telling the time, and andy had lost interest in it anyhow. it was night, it had been night for what seemed like years, the blackness around him proclaimed it would be night still for many more years. he dozed off and on, at times waking with a start, thinking he had heard something. for a few minutes he would listen intently, feverishly. but when nothing reached his ears but the little night sounds he had become accustomed to, he would sink back into the lethargy that weighed upon his eyelids. he wondered if he could be dying. he thought he was getting weaker--but how could he tell for sure? he could feel nothing, there was no pain, no muscular failure, no falling weakly to the ground. there were no muscles left and he was on the ground already. it was a herculean effort to keep his eyes open, to listen as he had vowed he would. but that might be only fatigue, the need for sleep. and shock! of course. he had to be suffering from shock, and from exposure, too. so if he didn't die of starvation, and if some beast didn't devour him, and if whatever wounds and injuries he had didn't do him in, he would probably die anyhow from pneumonia. the thought was almost a comforting one. it took him off the hook, unburdened him of the need to worry about whether or not he lived. the thing was out of his hands, and no stubbornness on his part was going to do any good. he had prayed himself out before, prayed until the words of the prayers were nothing but imbecilic mutterings and mumblings, meaningless monosyllables swirling pointlessly and endlessly through his tired brain. the thing was out of his hands. he--andy larson--he gave up. he quit. he was nothing but a head that was hard and a body that was dead. what right did he have thinking he had any control over what happened to him? he was incapable of doing anything himself--he had to wait until something happened to him. and he knew what was going to happen. so that's what he'd do. he'd just wait. * * * * * he closed his eyes and saw elsie, and before he realized he was going to do it he was praying again, talking to god about elsie, and then talking to elsie about god, and then back to god again and to elsie again, and he knew he was crying because he could taste the tears, and he knew he was going to die because there wasn't anything else that could happen, and he knew suddenly that he was mortally afraid. he could not lay rigidly, tensely--there were no muscles to tighten. but the tension had to go somewhere. he felt a numbness creeping up the back of his neck, felt his eyes bulging as if they would burst, heard a roaring in his ears. he opened his mouth, gasping, trying to breathe deeply, the roaring in his ears reaching a crescendo and then breaking into a cold sighing wind that loudened and softened with the regularity of a pulse beat. he didn't know if he was awake or sleeping, dozing or dreaming, dying or dead. but he heard elsie. she was calling him. over the cold black nothingness that separated them she was calling his name, her voice riding on the mournful wind sighing in his ears. he could hear her--it was as simple as that. he still didn't know if he was dreaming or dead. he didn't care. she was calling to him and he could hear, and although it wasn't the miracle he had wanted to pray for, still it was a miracle. he didn't question it; the comfort of hearing her voice after the terrible loneliness was enough. he didn't wonder how it could happen, didn't doubt that she could hear him answering her, as he was doing now. at first, so overcome with joy and relief, so thankful for the miracle, he didn't even recognize the tones of pain in her voice. "elsie, elsie, elsie," he cried out with his mind, reaching for her, wanting to seize her and hold her and never let her slip away again. "i hear you, my darling. i hear you!" "thank god!" her voice broke, and the sound of sobbing carried on the wind reached his ears. for a moment it puzzled him. he had been crying, but her sobs were something different. the night suddenly seemed to turn much colder. "what is it, elsie?" he called in fright. * * * * * the sobbing became a choking cough. he heard her grunt and gasp, and then a small scream turned his blood into ice. after a long moment she spoke again, panting, her voice strained and scratchy. "thank god you can hear me, andy. i've called and called. i prayed that i didn't care what happened, just so long as you could be with me. and you are, you are. it's a miracle and i don't know how. but you're with me and i won't be afraid any more. i won't ... oh ... oh ..." * * * * * andy suddenly understood. "elsie," he cried frantically. "where are you? are you in the hospital? is everything all right? is the doctor there? _elsie!_" he shouted her name aloud, angrily, trying to force it through the immense absorbent space between them, cursing and screaming at his own helplessness. "be quiet, andy," she said at last. "stop carrying on so. i'm all right now--it's just that the pain comes and sometimes i don't know what to do." "but are you all right? did the doctor--?" "shhh, andy. of course i'm all right. i'm in the labor room and there are lots of nice people to take care of me. dr. bell says it's like this often with first babies. and since i'm smaller than i should be--that doesn't help any. but i'm going to be all right." "you called me, though. you said you were afraid of something, and prayed that--" "you know how big a sissy i can be sometimes, andy. remember the time the wasp got in the bathroom while i was taking a shower, and how we got tangled up in the shower curtain where i was trying to hide from him and you were trying to catch him? and remember what happened right after that? right there in the bathroom?" she laughed lightly. to hear her laugh again! andy smiled to himself, remembering. she had been so soft and cool and pretty, snarled in the shower curtain, her hair damp and curly, her cheeks flushed, uttering little squeals and yelps and giggles that were exciting music, and suddenly he wasn't chasing the wasp any more and she wasn't giggling because the wasp was tickling her. she had pulled his head under the shower, and he had got soaked anyway, so he climbed into the tub and she helped pull off his clothes and they soaped each other into a lather and they rinsed and they climbed out together, but they never got dried off and they never got out of the bathroom--at least not for a long time. and oh, how her laugh had tinkled then, and how he loved her when she laughed. he thought of her laughing now, and a pain shot through his head. he tried to visualize her now, as she laughed--the swollen, hurt-looking belly, the heavy breasts dragging her frail shoulders forward, the drawn, pinched look he knew must be between her eyes as it was always when she felt unwell. he could visualize her this way, but not laughing. then he heard her, and she wasn't laughing any more, and her moans were needles and her screams were knives. it lasted longer this time. it lasted so long he could taste the blood where his teeth had ground through his lip, although he couldn't remember the pain of doing it. she came back to him at last, groaning weakly, and they talked, he cheerfully for her sake, she bravely for his. they remembered things they had done together, good times, happy times. they talked of what they would do when he came home, and what would they call the baby? andy junior if a boy? elsie if a girl? or karen, or mary, or kirsten, or maybe hermione? they laughed at that, and they laughed again at the thought of twins. but the laughs turned into gasps and cries of pain. and elsie lay thrashing in the labor room of a hospital in new jersey, and andy lay rigidly under a rigidity not of his own making in a jungle far away. * * * * * she came back to him and told him the doctors had had a consultation, and had agreed to wait a little longer. she came back and told him they had decided they could not wait much longer, and would have to undertake a caesarean. she came back and told him she had begged them to give her a little more time to try and do it herself, but she was afraid they were going to give her something to knock her out. she came and she went, but even when she was gone she was never so far away that andy could not hear her. he wanted to stop his ears to the hysterical outpourings, but he was helpless, and he hated himself for wanting to. when she came back the next time, with weakness turning her voice into a hoarse whisper, he begged her to take the drugs. but she wasn't listening to him. "andy, andy," she said, "listen to me please. it's important. they've decided on the caesarean, and i haven't got much time. i've been thinking of the way we've been talking, and i think it happened because i needed you so much. that's how i got all the way to where you are. i needed you with me with every part of me, and somehow part of me found you. but andy, you must have needed me, too. you must have needed me, andy, or how did you get back to me?" * * * * * despite the weakness of her voice, the fear in it rang out loudly. he tried to laugh and told her he was perfectly fine, except for worry about her. he made up a story about lying on his bunk, sipping a cool lemonade and listening to soft music, trying to calm his nerves over the prospect of becoming a new father and wondering where he would get the cigars to distribute to the boys. but she wouldn't believe him. she insisted that he tell her the truth, pleading with him, crying out her love and her fear and her need. at last he told her of the crash, speaking lightly, pointing out that the patrol ship would be back with daylight and all would be well. he didn't mention the fact that he had no body below the neck, but he knew she knew it was worse than he described. then she was gone again, for so long a time he thought the operation had started. but the wind still blew raggedly in his ears, and she came back, slowly, but with new vibrancy in her voice. "andy, you dope," she whispered with a brave attempt at sprightliness. "why didn't you--tell--me--sooner?" she was gasping, but hurried on. "i can tell the doctor, and he can telephone somebody and they can use the radio and tell the patrol where you are. oh! andy--where are you--? hurry--" she was going again, and as quickly as he could he told her of the river and the jungle, and where approximately the ship had been just before the crash. then she was gone and he closed his eyes and let the waves of near-hysterical relief wash over him. he was exhausted, the strain of long concentration had drained his strength, but he could almost feel the nerve ends in his dead body tingling with the exhilaration that sang in his mind. it was the miracle he hadn't dared pray for. it would be the greatest miracle ever performed, and he had almost lost it, almost killed it, almost thrown it away. but elsie-- he prayed feverishly now, thanking, thanking, and praying for the miracle to really happen and for elsie and his son to be all right. * * * * * then the wind was roaring blackly in his ears and the wind was turning into a shrieking demon and above it he could hear her wild scream: "they don't believe me! they say i'm delirious. andy! they're coming with something to put me to sleep. they don't believe me, andy ..." it ended. the wind stopped abruptly with her voice. the only things andy larson could hear were the blood pounding in his head and the grating of insects singing their last to the approaching dawn. it was all over, and he closed his eyes to the lightening sky. it was all over, the miracle was dead, the miracle never was, he was dead, he never was. elsie-- he rocked his head back and forth, wanting to cry, to curse and shout out his hatred of life. but nothing would come out, nothing was left. it was all over. he lay under his memorial, a junk pile of twisted metal, inching his way toward death, the abortion of an abortive miracle, alone, tearless, wifeless, sonless, helpless. a faint hum drifted to his ears. he looked up, wondering that the dawn had come so soon. the sky was brilliant with light, but still he could not see the patrol ship, knew that it couldn't see him, no matter how close the hum got. the hum came closer and closer, grew louder, and then he heard her soft laugh and the hum faded away. "andy? aren't you coming?" he stared at the sky, his eyes bulging, his tongue swollen in his throat. he couldn't see anything, the light was so bright. he thought he must be dreaming--he had heard that people had strange visions when they were dying. but her voice sounded so real. "don't worry, honey," she said softly. "everything is all right now. come on, we're waiting." he strained his eyes to see, and the phrase _we're waiting_ struck him just as the other voice let out a cry. "what--?" he mumbled, stupidly, happily, afraid to believe. she laughed again, and little pieces of glittering silver tinkled through the gold of the sky. "i guess we'll have to call him andy, after his father. he was a slow-poke too." she was there beside him now--or he was beside her--he didn't know which, for he was suddenly free of the great weight that held him down, he had the sensation of floating lightly through the air. but they were together and she was radiant, and he was happier than he had ever thought he could be, even though she couldn't put her arms around him as he wanted her to because her arms were full of his son. his arms weren't full--only his eyes and his throat and his heart--and he put them around her, holding her tightly. the baby howled a protest, and elsie, laughed her wonderful laugh again. "he has a good voice, andy, don't you think?" "a lovely voice," andy agreed, and his own voice sounded to him as if he were singing. the end transcriber's note: this etext was produced from _amazing stories_ december . extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the u.s. copyright on this publication was renewed. minor spelling and typographical errors have been corrected without note. proofreaders. html version by al haines. the miracles of our lord by george macdonald the miracles of our lord contents i. introduction ii. the beginning of miracles iii. the cure of simon's wife's mother iv. miracles of healing unsolicited v. miracles of healing solicited by the suffers vi. miracles granted to the prayer of friends vii. the casting out of devils viii. the raising of the dead ix. the government of nature x. miracles of destruction xi. the resurrection xii. the transfiguration i. introduction. i have been requested to write some papers on our lord's miracles. i venture the attempt in the belief that, seeing they are one of the modes in which his unseen life found expression, we are bound through them to arrive at some knowledge of that life. for he has come, the word of god, that we may know god: every word of his then, as needful to the knowing of himself, is needful to the knowing of god, and we must understand, as far as we may, every one of his words and every one of his actions, which, with him, were only another form of word. i believe this the immediate end of our creation. and i believe that this will at length result in the unravelling for us of what must now, more or less, appear to every man the knotted and twisted coil of the universe. it seems to me that it needs no great power of faith to believe in the miracles--for true faith is a power, not a mere yielding. there are far harder things to believe than the miracles. for a man is not required to believe in them save as believing in jesus. if a man can believe that there is a god, he may well believe that, having made creatures capable of hungering and thirsting for him, he must be capable of speaking a word to guide them in their feeling after him. and if he is a grand god, a god worthy of being god, yea (his metaphysics even may show the seeker), if he is a god capable of being god, he will speak the clearest grandest word of guidance which he can utter intelligible to his creatures. for us, that word must simply be the gathering of all the expressions of his visible works into an infinite human face, lighted up by an infinite human soul behind it, namely, that potential essence of man, if i may use a word of my own, which was in the beginning with god. if god should _thus_ hear the cry of the noblest of his creatures, for such are all they who do cry after him, and in very deed show them his face, it is but natural to expect that the deeds of the great messenger should be just the works of the father done in little. if he came to reveal his father in miniature, as it were (for in these unspeakable things we can but use figures, and the homeliest may be the holiest), to tone down his great voice, which, too loud for men to hear it aright, could but sound to them as an inarticulate thundering, into such a still small voice as might enter their human ears in welcome human speech, then the works that his father does so widely, so grandly that they transcend the vision of men, the son must do briefly and sharply before their very eyes. this, i think, is the true nature of the miracles, an epitome of god's processes in nature beheld in immediate connection with their source--a source as yet lost to the eyes and too often to the hearts of men in the far-receding gradations of continuous law. that men might see the will of god at work, jesus did the works of his father thus. here i will suppose some honest, and therefore honourable, reader objecting: but do you not thus place the miracles in dignity below the ordinary processes of nature? i answer: the miracles are mightier far than any goings on of nature as beheld by common eyes, dissociating them from a living will; but the miracles are surely less than those mighty goings on of nature with god beheld at their heart. in the name of him who delighted to say "my father is greater than i," i will say that his miracles in bread and in wine were far less grand and less beautiful than the works of the father they represented, in making the corn to grow in the valleys, and the grapes to drink the sunlight on the hill-sides of the world, with all their infinitudes of tender gradation and delicate mystery of birth. but the son of the father be praised, who, as it were, condensed these mysteries before us, and let us see the precious gifts coming at once from gracious hands--hands that love could kiss and nails could wound. there are some, i think, who would perhaps find it more possible to accept the new testament story if the miracles did not stand in the way. but perhaps, again, it would be easier for them, to accept both if they could once look into the true heart of these miracles. so long as they regard only the surface of them, they will, most likely, see in them only a violation of the laws of nature: when they behold the heart of them, they will recognize there at least a possible fulfilment of her deepest laws. with such, however, is not my main business now, any more than with those who cannot believe in a god at all, and therefore to whom a miracle is an absurdity. i may, however, just make this one remark with respect to the latter--that perhaps it is better they should believe in no god than believe in such a god as they have yet been able to imagine. perhaps thus they are nearer to a true faith--except indeed they prefer the notion of the unconscious generating the conscious, to that of a self-existent love, creative in virtue of its being love. such have never loved woman or child save after a fashion which has left them content that death should seize on the beloved and bear them back to the maternal dust. but i doubt if there can be any who thus would choose a sleep--walking pan before a wakeful father. at least, they cannot know the father and choose the pan. let us then recognize the works of the father as epitomized in the miracles of the son. what in the hands of the father are the mighty motions and progresses and conquests of life, in the hands of the son are miracles. i do not myself believe that he valued the working of these miracles as he valued the utterance of the truth in words; but all that he did had the one root, _obedience_, in which alone can any son be free. and what is the highest obedience? simply a following of the father--a doing of what the father does. every true father wills that his child should be as he is in his deepest love, in his highest hope. all that jesus does is of his father. what we see in the son is of the father. what his works mean concerning him, they mean concerning the father. much as i shrink from the notion of a formal shaping out of design in any great life, so unlike the endless freedom and spontaneity of nature (and he is the nature of nature), i cannot help observing that his first miracle was one of creation--at least, is to our eyes more like creation than almost any other--for who can say that it was creation, not knowing in the least what creation is, or what was the process in this miracle? ii. the beginning of miracles. already jesus had his disciples, although as yet he had done no mighty works. they followed him for himself and for his mighty words. with his mother they accompanied him to a merry-making at a wedding. with no retiring regard, with no introverted look of self-consciousness or self-withdrawal, but more human than any of the company, he regarded their rejoicings with perfect sympathy, for, whatever suffering might follow, none knew so well as he that-- "there is one who makes the joy the last in every song." the assertion in the old legendary description of his person and habits, that he was never known to smile, i regard as an utter falsehood, for to me it is incredible--almost as a geometrical absurdity. in that glad company the eyes of a divine artist, following the spiritual lines of the group, would have soon settled on his face as the centre whence radiated all the gladness, where, as i seem to see him, he sat in the background beside his mother. even the sunny face of the bridegroom would appear less full of light than his. but something is at hand which will change his mood. for no true man had he been if his mood had never changed. his high, holy, obedient will, his tender, pure, strong heart never changed, but his mood, his feeling did change. for the mood must often, and in many cases ought to be the human reflex of changing circumstance. the change comes from his mother. she whispers to him that they have no more wine. the bridegroom's liberality had reached the limit of his means, for, like his guests, he was, most probably, of a humble calling, a craftsman, say, or a fisherman. it must have been a painful little trial to him if he knew the fact; but i doubt if he heard of the want before it was supplied. there was nothing in this however to cause the change in our lord's mood of which i have spoken. it was no serious catastrophe, at least to him, that the wine should fail. his mother had but told him the fact; only there is more than words in every commonest speech that passes. it was not his mother's words, but the tone and the look with which they were interwoven that wrought the change. she knew that her son was no common man, and she believed in him, with an unripe, unfeatured faith. this faith, working with her ignorance and her fancy, led her to expect the great things of the world from him. this was a faith which must fail that it might grow. imperfection must fail that strength may come in its place. it is well for the weak that their faith should fail them, for it may at the moment be resting its wings upon the twig of some brittle fancy, instead of on a branch of the tree of life. but, again, what was it in his mother's look and tone that should work the change in our lord's mood? the request implied in her words could give him no offence, for he granted that request; and he never would have done a thing he did not approve, should his very mother ask him. the _thoughts of_ the mother lay not in her words, but in the expression that accompanied them, and it was to those thoughts that our lord replied. hence his answer, which has little to do with her spoken request, is the key both to her thoughts and to his. if we do not understand his reply, we _may_ misunderstand the miracle--certainly we are in danger of grievously misunderstanding him--a far worse evil. how many children are troubled in heart that jesus should have spoken to his mother as our translation compels them to suppose he did speak! "woman, what have i to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." his hour for working the miracle _had_ come, for he wrought it; and if he had to do with one human soul at all, that soul must be his mother. the "woman," too, sounds strange in our ears. this last, however, is our fault: we allow words to sink from their high rank, and then put them to degraded uses. what word so full of grace and tender imagings to any true man as that one word! the saviour did use it to his mother; and when he called her _woman_, the good custom of the country and the time was glorified in the word as it came from his lips _fulfilled_, of humanity; for those lips were the open gates of a heart full of infinite meanings. hence whatever word he used had more of the human in it than that word had ever held before. what he did say was this--"woman, what is there common to thee and me? my hour is not yet come." what! was not their humanity common to them? had she not been fit, therefore chosen, to bear him? was she not his mother? but his words had no reference to the relation between them; they only referred to the present condition of her mind, or rather the nature of the thought and expectation which now occupied it. her hope and his intent were at variance; there was no harmony between his thought and hers; and it was to that thought and that hope of hers that his words were now addressed. to paraphrase the words--and if i do so with reverence and for the sake of the spirit which is higher than the word, i think i am allowed to do so-- "woman, what is there in your thoughts now that is in sympathy with mine? also the hour that you are expecting is not come yet." what, then, was in our lord's thoughts? and what was in his mother's thoughts to call forth his words? she was thinking the time had come for making a show of his power--for revealing what a great man he was--for beginning to let that glory shine, which was, in her notion, to culminate in the grandeur of a righteous monarch--a second solomon, forsooth, who should set down the mighty in the dust, and exalt them of low degree. here was the opportunity for working like a prophet of old, and revealing of what a mighty son she was the favoured mother. and of what did the glow of her face, the light in her eyes, and the tone with which she uttered the words, "they have no wine," make jesus think? perhaps of the decease which he must accomplish at jerusalem; perhaps of a throne of glory betwixt the two thieves; certainly of a kingdom of heaven not such as filled her imagination, even although her heaven-descended son was the king thereof. a kingdom of exulting obedience, not of acquiescence, still less of compulsion, lay germed in his bosom, and he must be laid in the grave ere that germ could send up its first green lobes into the air of the human world. no throne, therefore, of earthly grandeur for him! no triumph for his blessed mother such as she dreamed! there was nothing common in their visioned ends. hence came the change of mood to jesus, and hence the words that sound at first so strange, seeming to have so little to do with the words of his mother. but no change of mood could change a feeling towards mother or friends. the former, although she could ill understand what he meant, never fancied in his words any unkindness to her. she, too, had the face of the speaker to read; and from that face came such answer to her prayer for her friends, that she awaited no confirming words, but in the confidence of a mother who knew her child, said at once to the servants, "whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." if any one object that i have here imagined too much, i would remark, first, that the records in the gospel are very brief and condensed; second, that the germs of a true intelligence must lie in this small seed, and our hearts are the soil in which it must unfold itself; third, that we are bound to understand the story, and that the foregoing are the suppositions on which i am able to understand it in a manner worthy of what i have learned concerning him. i am bound to refuse every interpretation that seems to me unworthy of him, for to accept such would be to sin against the holy ghost. if i am wrong in my idea either of that which i receive or of that which i reject, as soon as the fact is revealed to me i must cast the one away and do justice to the other. meantime this interpretation seems to me to account for our lord's words in a manner he will not be displeased with even if it fail to reach the mark of the fact. that st john saw, and might expect such an interpretation to be found in the story, barely as he has told it, will be rendered the more probable if we remember his own similar condition and experience when he and his brother james prayed the lord for the highest rank in his kingdom, and received an answer which evidently flowed from the same feeling to which i have attributed that given on this occasion to his mother. "'fill the water-pots with water.' and they filled them up to the brim. 'draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.' and they bare it. 'thou hast kept the good wine until now.'" it is such a thing of course that, when our lord gave them wine, it would be of the best, that it seems almost absurd to remark upon it. what the father would make and will make, and that towards which he is ever working, is _the best;_ and when our lord turns the water into wine it must be very good. it is like his father, too, not to withhold good wine because men abuse it. enforced virtue is unworthy of the name. that men may rise above temptation, it is needful that they should have temptation. it is the will of him who makes the grapes and the wine. men will even call jesus himself a wine-bibber. what matters it, so long as he works as the father works, and lives as the father wills? i dare not here be misunderstood. god chooses that men should be tried, but let a man beware of tempting his neighbour. god knows how and how much, and where and when: man is his brother's keeper, and must keep him according to his knowledge. a man may work the will of god for others, and be condemned therein because he sought his own will and not god's. that our lord gave this company wine, does not prove that he would have given any company wine. to some he refused even the bread they requested at his hands. because he gave wine to the wedding-guests, shall man dig a pit at the corner of every street, that the poor may fall therein, spending their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not? let the poor man be tempted as god wills, for the end of god is victory; let not man tempt him, for his end is his neighbour's fall, or at best he heeds it not for the sake of gain, and he shall receive according to his works. to him who can thank god with free heart for his good wine, there is a glad significance in the fact that our lord's first miracle was this turning of water into wine. it is a true symbol of what he has done for the world in glorifying all things. with his divine alchemy he turns not only water into wine, but common things into radiant mysteries, yea, every meal into a eucharist, and the jaws of the sepulchre into an outgoing gate. i do not mean that he makes any change in the things or ways of god, but a mighty change in the hearts and eyes of men, so that god's facts and god's meanings become their faiths and their hopes. the destroying spirit, who works in the commonplace, is ever covering the deep and clouding the high. for those who listen to that spirit great things cannot be. such are there, but they cannot see them, for in themselves they do not aspire. they believe, perhaps, in the truth and grace of their first child: when they have spoiled him, they laugh at the praises of childhood. from all that is thus low and wretched, incapable and fearful, he who made the water into wine delivers men, revealing heaven around them, god in all things, truth in every instinct, evil withering and hope springing even in the path of the destroyer. that the wine should be his first miracle, and that the feeding of the multitudes should be the only other creative miracle, will also suggest many thoughts in connection with the symbol he has left us of his relation to his brethren. in the wine and the bread of the eucharist, he reminds us how utterly he has given, is giving, himself for the gladness and the strength of his father's children. yea more; for in that he is the radiation of the father's glory, this bread and wine is the symbol of how utterly the father gives himself to his children, how earnestly he would have them partakers of his own being. if jesus was the son of the father, is it hard to believe that he should give men bread and wine? it was not his power, however, but his glory, that jesus showed forth in the miracle. his power could not be hidden, but it was a poor thing beside his glory. yea, power in itself is a poor thing. if it could stand alone, which it cannot, it would be a horror. no amount of lonely power could create. it is the love that is at the root of power, the power of power, which alone can create. what then was this his glory? what was it that made him glorious? it was that, like his father, he ministered to the wants of men. had they not needed the wine, not for the sake of whatever show of his power would he have made it. the concurrence of man's need and his love made it possible for that glory to shine forth. it is for this glory most that we worship him. but power is no object of adoration, and they who try to worship it are slaves. their worship is no real worship. those who trembled at the thunder from the mountain went and worshipped a golden calf; but moses went into the thick darkness to find his god. how far the expectation of the mother mary that her son would, by majesty of might, appeal to the wedding guests, and arouse their enthusiasm for himself, was from our lord's thoughts, may be well seen in the fact that the miracle was not beheld even by the ruler of the feast; while the report of it would probably receive little credit from at least many of those who partook of the good wine. so quietly was it done, so entirely without pre-intimation of his intent, so stolenly, as it were, in the two simple ordered acts, the filling of the water-pots with water, and the drawing of it out again, as to make it manifest that it was done for the ministration. he did not do it even for the show of his goodness, but _to be good_. this alone could show his father's goodness. it was done because here was an opportunity in which all circumstances combined with the bodily presence of the powerful and the prayer of his mother, to render it fit that the love of his heart should go forth in giving his merry-making brothers and sisters more and better wine to drink. and herein we find another point in which this miracle of jesus resembles the working of his father. for god ministers to us so gently, so stolenly, as it were, with such a quiet, tender, loving absence of display, that men often drink of his wine, as these wedding guests drank, without knowing whence it comes--without thinking that the giver is beside them, yea, in their very hearts. for god will not compel the adoration of men: it would be but a pagan worship that would bring to his altars. he will rouse in men a sense of need, which shall grow at length into a longing; he will make them feel after him, until by their search becoming able to behold him, he may at length reveal to them the glory of their father. he works silently--keeps quiet behind his works, as it were, that he may truly reveal himself in the right time. with this intent also, when men find his wine good and yet do not rise and search for the giver, he will plague them with sore plagues, that the good wine of life may not be to them, and therefore to him and the universe, an evil thing. it would seem that the correlative of creation is search; that as god has _made us_, we must _find_ him; that thus our action must reflect his; that thus he glorifies us with a share in the end of all things, which is that the father and his children may be one in thought, judgment, feeling, and intent, in a word, that they may mean the same thing. st john says that jesus thus "manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him." i doubt if any but his disciples knew of the miracle; or of those others who might see or hear of it, if any believed on him because of it. it is possible to see a miracle, and not believe in it; while many of those who saw a miracle of our lord believed in the miracle, and yet did not believe in him. i wonder how many christians there are who so thoroughly believe god made them that they can laugh in god's name; who understand that god invented laughter and gave it to his children. such belief would add a keenness to the zest in their enjoyment, and slay that sneering laughter of which a man grimaces to the fiends, as well as that feeble laughter in which neither heart nor intellect has a share. it would help them also to understand the depth of this miracle. the lord of gladness delights in the laughter of a merry heart. these wedding guests could have done without wine, surely without more wine and better wine. but the father looks with no esteem upon a bare existence, and is ever working, even by suffering, to render life more rich and plentiful. his gifts are to the overflowing of the cup; but when the cup would overflow, he deepens its hollow, and widens its brim. our lord is profuse like his father, yea, will, at his own sternest cost, be lavish to his brethren. he will give them wine indeed. but even they who know whence the good wine comes, and joyously thank the giver, shall one day cry out, like the praiseful ruler of the feast to him who gave it not, "thou hast kept the good wine until now." iii. the cure of simon's wife's mother. in respect of the purpose i have in view, it is of little consequence in what order i take the miracles. i choose for my second chapter the story of the cure of st peter's mother-in-law. bare as the narrative is, the event it records has elements which might have been moulded with artistic effect--on the one side the woman tossing in the folds of the fever, on the other the entering life. but it is not from this side that i care to view it. neither do i wish to look at it from the point of view of the bystanders, although it would appear that we had the testimony of three of them in the three gospels which contain the story. we might almost determine the position in the group about the bed occupied by each of the three, from the differences between their testimonies. one says jesus stood over her; another, he touched her hand; the third, he lifted her up: they agree that the fever left her, and she ministered to them.--in the present case, as in others behind, i mean to regard the miracle from the point of view of the person healed. pain, sickness, delirium, madness, as great infringements of the laws of nature as the miracles themselves, are such veritable presences to the human experience, that what bears no relation to their existence, cannot be the god of the human race. and the man who cannot find his god in the fog of suffering, no less than he who forgets his god in the sunshine of health, has learned little either of st paul or st john. the religion whose light renders no dimmest glow across this evil air, cannot be more than a dim reflex of the true. and who will mourn to find this out? there are, perhaps, some so anxious about themselves that, rather than say, "i have it not: it is a better thing than i have ever possessed," they would say, "i have the precious thing, but in the hour of trial it is of little avail." let us rejoice that the glory is great, even if we dare not say, it is mine. then shall we try the more earnestly to lay hold upon it. so long as men must toss in weary fancies all the dark night, crying, "would god it were morning," to find, it may be, when it arrives, but little comfort in the grey dawn, so long must we regard god as one to be seen or believed in--cried unto at least--across all the dreary flats of distress or dark mountains of pain, and therefore those who would help their fellows must sometimes look for him, as it were, through the eyes of those who suffer, and try to help them to think, not from ours, but from their own point of vision. i shall therefore now write almost entirely for those to whom suffering is familiar, or at least well known. and first i would remind them that all suffering is against the ideal order of things. no man can love pain. it is an unlovely, an ugly, abhorrent thing. the more true and delicate the bodily and mental constitution, the more must it recoil from pain. no one, i think, could dislike pain so much as the saviour must have disliked it. god dislikes it. he is then on our side in the matter. he knows it is grievous to be borne, a thing he would cast out of his blessed universe, save for reasons. but one will say--how can this help me when the agony racks me, and the weariness rests on me like a gravestone?--is it nothing, i answer, to be reminded that suffering is in its nature transitory--that it is against the first and final will of god--that it is a means only, not an end? is it nothing to be told that it will pass away? is not that what you would? god made man for lordly skies, great sunshine, gay colours, free winds, and delicate odours; and however the fogs may be needful for the soul, right gladly does he send them away, and cause the dayspring from on high to revisit his children. while they suffer he is brooding over them an eternal day, suffering with them but rejoicing in their future. he is the god of the individual man, or he could be no god of the race. i believe it is possible--and that some have achieved it--so to believe in and rest upon the immutable health--so to regard one's own sickness as a kind of passing aberration, that the soul is thereby sustained, even as sometimes in a weary dream the man is comforted by telling himself it is but a dream, and that waking is sure. god would have us reasonable and strong. every effort of his children to rise above the invasion of evil in body or in mind is a pleasure to him. few, i suppose, attain to this; but there is a better thing which to many, i trust, is easier--to say, thy will be done. but now let us look at the miracle as received by the woman. she had "a great fever." she was tossing from side to side in vain attempts to ease a nameless misery. her head ached, and forms dreary, even in their terror, kept rising before her in miserable and aimless dreams; senseless words went on repeating themselves ill her very brain was sick of them; she was destitute, afflicted, tormented; now the centre for the convergence of innumerable atoms, now driven along in an uproar of hideous globes; faces grinned and mocked at her; her mind ever strove to recover itself, and was ever borne away in the rush of invading fancies; but through it all was the nameless unrest, not an aching, nor a burning, nor a stinging, but a bodily grief, dark, drear, and nameless. how could they have borne such before he had come? a sudden ceasing of motions uncontrolled; a coolness gliding through the burning skin; a sense of waking into repose; a consciousness of all-pervading well-being, of strength conquering weakness, of light displacing darkness, of urging life at the heart; and behold! she is sitting up in her bed, a hand clasping hers, a face looking in hers. he has judged the evil thing, and it is gone. he has saved her out of her distresses. they fold away from off her like the cerements of death. she is new-born--new-made--all things are new-born with her--and he who makes all things new is there. from him, she knows, has the healing flowed. he has given of his life to her. away, afar behind her floats the cloud of her suffering. she almost forgets it in her grateful joy. she is herself now. she rises. the sun is shining. it had been shining all the time--waiting for her. the lake of galilee is glittering joyously. that too sets forth the law of life. but the fulfilling of the law is love: she rises and ministers. i am tempted to remark in passing, although i shall have better opportunity of dealing with the matter involved, that there is no sign of those whom our lord cures desiring to retain the privileges of the invalid. the joy of health is labour. he who is restored must be fellow-worker with god. this woman, lifted out of the whelming sand of the fever and set upon her feet, hastens to her ministrations. she has been used to hard work. it is all right now; she must to it again. but who was he who had thus lifted her up? she saw a young man by her side. is it the young man, jesus, of whom she has heard? for capernaum is not far from nazareth, and the report of his wisdom and goodness must have spread, for he had grown in favour with man as well as with god. is it he, to whom god has given such power, or is it john, of whom she has also heard? whether he was a prophet or a son of the prophets, whether he was jesus or john, she waits not to question; for here are guests; here is something to be done. questions will keep; work must be despatched. it is the day, and the night is at hand. she rose and ministered unto them. but if we ask who he is, this is the answer: he is the son of god come to do the works of his father. where, then, is the healing of the father? all the world over, in every man's life and knowledge, almost in every man's personal experience, although it may be unrecognized as such. for just as in certain moods of selfishness our hearts are insensible to the tenderest love of our surrounding families, so the degrading spirit of the commonplace _enables_ us to live in the midst of ministrations, so far from knowing them as such, that it is hard for us to believe that the very heart of god would care to do that which his hand alone can do and is doing every moment. i remind my reader that i have taken it for granted that he confesses there is a god, or at least hopes there may be a god. if any one interposes, saying that science nowadays will not permit him to believe in such a being, i answer it is not for him i am now writing, but for such as have gone through a different course of thought and experience from his. to him i may be honoured to say a word some day. i do not think of him now. but to the reader of my choice i do say that i see no middle course between believing that every alleviation of pain, every dawning of hope across the troubled atmosphere of the spirit, every case of growing well again, is the doing of god, or that there is no god at all--none at least in whom _i_ could believe. had christians been believing in god better, more grandly, the present phase of unbelief, which no doubt is needful, and must appear some time in the world's history, would not have appeared in our day. no doubt it has come when it must, and will vanish when it must; but those who do believe are more to blame for it, i think, than those who do not believe. the common kind of belief in god is rationally untenable. half to an insensate nature, half to a living god, is a worship that cannot stand. god is all in all, or no god at all. the man who goes to church every sunday, and yet trembles before chance, is a christian only because christ has claimed him; is not a christian as having believed in him. i would not be hard. there are so many degrees in faith! a man may be on the right track, may be learning of christ, and be very poor and weak. but i say there is no _standing_ room, no reality of reason, between absolute faith and absolute unbelief. either not a sparrow falls to the ground without him, or there is no god, and we are fatherless children. those who attempt to live in such a limbo as lies between the two, are only driven of the wind and tossed. has my reader ever known the weariness of suffering, the clouding of the inner sky, the haunting of spectral shapes, the misery of disordered laws, when nature is wrong within him, and her music is out of tune and harsh, when he is shot through with varied griefs and pains, and it seems as there were no life more in the world, save of misery--"pain, pain ever, for ever"? then, surely, he has also known the turn of the tide, when the pain begins to abate, when the sweet sleep falls upon soul and body, when a faint hope doubtfully glimmers across the gloom! or has he known the sudden waking from sleep and from fever at once, the consciousness that life is life, that life is the law of things, the coolness and the gladness, when the garments of pain which, like that fabled garment of dejanira, enwrapped and ate into his being, have folded back from head and heart, and he looks out again once more new-born? it is god. this is his will, his law of life conquering the law of death tell me not of natural laws, as if i were ignorant of them, or meant to deny them. the question is whether these laws go wheeling on of themselves in a symmetry of mathematical shapes, or whether their perfect order, their unbroken certainty of movement, is not the expression of a perfect intellect informed by a perfect heart. law is truth: has it a soul of thought, or has it not? if not, then farewell hope and love and possible perfection. but for me, i will hope on, strive on, fight with the invading unbelief; for the horror of being the sport of insensate law, the more perfect the more terrible, is hell and utter perdition. if a man tells me that science says god is not a likely being, i answer, probably not--such as you, who have given your keen, admirable, enviable powers to the observation of outer things only, are capable of supposing him; but that the god i mean may not be the very heart of the lovely order you see so much better than i, you have given me no reason to fear. my god may be above and beyond and in all that. in this matter of healing, then, as in all the miracles, we find jesus doing the works of the father. god is our saviour: the son of god comes healing the sick--doing that, i repeat, before our eyes, which the father, for his own reasons, some of which i think i can see well enough, does from behind the veil of his creation and its laws. the cure comes by law, comes by the physician who brings the law to bear upon us; we awake, and lo! i it is god the saviour. every recovery is as much his work as the birth of a child; as much the work of the father as if it had been wrought by the word of the son before the eyes of the multitude. need i, to combat again the vulgar notion that the essence of the miracles lies in their power, dwell upon this miracle further? surely, no one who honours the saviour will for a moment imagine him, as he entered the chamber where the woman lay tormented, saying to himself, "here is an opportunity of showing how mighty my father is!" no. there was suffering; here was healing. what i could imagine him saying to himself would be, "here i can help! here my father will let me put forth my healing, and give her back to her people." what should we think of a rich man, who, suddenly brought into contact with the starving upon his own estate, should think within himself, "here is a chance for me! now i can let them see how rich i am!" and so plunge his hands in his pockets and lay gold upon the bare table? the receivers might well be grateful; but the arm of the poor neighbour put under the head of the dying man, would gather a deeper gratitude, a return of tenderer love. it is heart alone that can satisfy heart. it is the love of god alone that can gather to itself the love of his children. to believe in an almighty being is hardly to believe in a god at all. to believe in a being who, in his weakness and poverty, if such could be, would die for his creatures, would be to believe in a god indeed. iv. miracles of healing unsolicited. in my last chapter i took the healing of simon's wife's mother as a type of all such miracles, viewed from the consciousness of the person healed. in the multitude of cases--for it must not be forgotten that there was a multitude of which we have no individual record--the experience must have been very similar. the evil thing, the antagonist of their life, departed; they knew in themselves that they were healed; they beheld before them the face and form whence the healing power had gone forth, and they believed in the man. what they believed _about_ him, farther than that he had healed them and was good, i cannot pretend to say. some said he was one thing, some another, but they believed in the man himself. they felt henceforth the strongest of ties binding his life to their life. he was now the central thought of their being. their minds lay open to all his influences, operating in time and by holy gradations. the well of life was henceforth to them an unsealed fountain, and endless currents of essential life began to flow from it through their existence. high love urging gratitude awoke the conscience to intenser life; and the healed began to recoil from evil deeds and vile thoughts as jarring with the new friendship. mere acquaintance with a good man is a powerful antidote to evil; but the knowledge of _such_ a man, as those healed by him knew him, was the mightiest of divine influences. in these miracles of healing our lord must have laid one of the largest of the foundation-stones of his church. the healed knew him henceforth, not by comprehension, but with their whole being. their very life acknowledged him. they returned to their homes to recall and love afresh. i wonder what their talk about him was like. what an insight it would give into our common nature, to know how these men and women thought and spoke concerning him! but the time soon arrived when they had to be public martyrs--that is, witnesses to what they knew, come of it what might. after our lord's departure came the necessity for those who loved him to gather together, thus bearing their testimony at once. next to his immediate disciples, those whom he had cured must have been the very heart of the young church. imagine the living strength of such a heart--personal love to the personal helper the very core of it. the church had begun with the first gush of affection in the heart of the mother mary, and now "great was the company of those that published" the good news to the world. the works of the father had drawn the hearts of the children, and they spake of the elder brother who had brought those works to their doors. the thoughtful remembrances of those who had heard him speak; the grateful convictions of those whom he had healed; the tender memories of those whom he had taken in his arms and blessed--these were the fine fibrous multitudinous roots which were to the church existence, growth, and continuance, for these were they which sucked in the dews and rains of that descending spirit which was the life of the tree. individual life is the life of the church. but one may say: why then did he not cure all the sick in judæa? simply because all were not ready to be cured. many would not have believed in him if he had cured them. their illness had not yet wrought its work, had not yet ripened them to the possibility of faith; his cure would have left them deeper in evil than before. "he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." god will cure a man, will give him a fresh start of health and hope, and the man will be the better for it, even without having _yet_ learned to thank him; but to behold the healer and acknowledge the outstretched hand of help, yet not to believe in the healer, is a terrible thing for the man; and i think the lord kept his personal healing for such as it would bring at once into some relation of heart and will with himself; whence arose his frequent demand of faith--a demand apparently always responded to: at the word, the flickering belief, the smoking flax, burst into a flame. evil, that is, physical evil, is a moral good--a mighty means to a lofty end. pain is an evil; but a good as well, which it would be a great injury to take from the man before it had wrought its end. then it becomes all evil, and must pass. i now proceed to a group of individual cases in which, as far as we can judge from the narratives, our lord gave the gift of restoration unsolicited. there are other instances of the same, but they fall into other groups, gathered because of other features. the first is that, recorded by st luke alone, of the "woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself." it may be that this belongs to the class of demoniacal possession as well, but i prefer to take it here; for i am very doubtful whether the expression in the narrative--"a spirit of infirmity," even coupled with that of our lord in defending her and himself from the hypocritical attack of the ruler of the synagogue, "this woman--whom satan hath bound," renders it necessary to regard it as one of the latter kind. this is, however, a matter of small importance--at least from our present point of view. bowed earthwards, the necessary blank of her eye the ground and not the horizon, the form divine deformed towards that of the four-footed animals, this woman had been in bondage eighteen years. necessary as it is to one's faith to believe every trouble fitted for the being who has to bear it, every physical evil not merely the result of moral evil, but antidotal thereto, no one ought to dare judge of the relation between moral condition and physical suffering in individual cases. our lord has warned us from that. but in proportion as love and truth prevail in the hearts of men, physical evil will vanish from the earth. the righteousness of his descendants will destroy the disease which the unrighteousness of their ancestor has transmitted to them. but, i repeat, to destroy this physical evil save by the destruction of its cause, by the redemption of the human nature from moral evil, would be to ruin the world. what in this woman it was that made it right she should bear these bonds for eighteen years, who can tell? certainly it was not that god had forgotten her. what it may have preserved her from, one may perhaps conjecture, but can hardly have a right to utter. neither can we tell how she had borne the sad affliction; whether in the lovely patience common amongst the daughters of affliction, or with the natural repining of one made to behold the sun, and doomed ever to regard the ground upon which she trod. while patience would have its glorious reward in the cure, it is possible that even the repinings of prideful pain might be destroyed by the grand deliverance, that gratitude might beget sorrow for vanished impatience. anyhow the right hour had come when the darkness must fly away. supported, i presume, by the staff which yet more assimilated her to the lower animals, she had crept to the synagogue--a good sign surely, for the synagogue was not its ruler. there is no appearance from the story, that she had come there to seek jesus, or even that when in his presence she saw him before the word of her deliverance had gone forth. most likely, being bowed together, she heard him before she saw him. but he saw her. our translation says he called her to him. i do not think this is correct. i think the word, although it might mean that, does mean simply that he _addressed her_. going to her, i think, and saying, "woman, thou art loosed from thy infirmity," "he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified god." what an uplifting!--a type of all that god works in his human beings. the head, down-bent with sin, care, sorrow, pain, is uplifted; the grovelling will sends its gaze heavenward; the earth is no more the one object of the aspiring spirit; we lift our eyes to god; we bend no longer even to his will, but raise ourselves up towards his will, for his will has become our will, and that will is our sanctification. although the woman did not beg the son to cure her, she may have prayed the father much. anyhow proof that she was ready for the miracle is not wanting. she glorified god. it is enough. she not merely thanked the man who had wrought the cure, for of this we cannot doubt; but she glorified the known saviour, god, from whom cometh down every good gift and every perfect gift. she had her share in the miracle i think too, as, in his perfect bounty, god gives a share to every one in what work he does for him. i mean, that, with the given power, _she_ had to _lift herself_ up. such active faith is the needful response in order that a man may be a child of god, and not the mere instrument upon which his power plays a soulless tune. in this preventing of prayer, in this answering before the call, in this bringing of the blessing to the door, according to which i have grouped this with the following miracles, jesus did as his father is doing every day. he was doing the works of his father. if men had no help, no deliverance from the ills which come upon them, even those which they bring upon themselves, except such as came at their cry; if no salvation descended from god, except such as they prayed for, where would the world be? in what case would the generations of men find themselves? but the help of god is ever coming, ever setting them free whom satan hath bound; ever giving them a fresh occasion and a fresh impulse to glorify the god of their salvation. for with every such recovery the child in the man is new-born--for some precious moments at least; a gentleness of spirit, a wonder at the world, a sense of the blessedness of being, an openness to calm yet rousing influences, appear in the man. these are the descending angels of god. the passion that had blotted out the child will revive; the strife of the world will renew wrath and hate; ambition and greed will blot out the beauty of the earth; envy of others will blind the man to his own blessedness; and self-conceit will revive in him all those prejudices whose very strength lies in his weakness; but the man has had a glimpse of the peace to gain which he must fight with himself; he has for one moment felt what he might be if he trusted in god; and the memory of it may return in the hour of temptation. as the commonest things in nature are the most lovely, so the commonest agencies in humanity are the most powerful. sickness and recovery therefrom have a larger share in the divine order of things for the deliverance of men than can show itself to the keenest eyes. isolated in individuals, the facts are unknown; or, slow and obscure in their operation, are forgotten by the time their effects appear. many things combine to render an enlarged view of the moral influences of sickness and recovery impossible. the kingdom cometh not with observation, and the working of the leaven of its approach must be chiefly unseen. like the creative energy itself, it works "in secret shadow, far from all men's sight." the teaching of our lord which immediately follows concerning the small beginnings of his kingdom, symbolized in the grain of mustard seed and the leaven, may, i think, have immediate reference to the cure of this woman, and show that he regarded her glorifying of god for her recovery as one of those beginnings of a mighty growth. we do find the same similes in a different connection in st matthew and st mark; but even if we had no instances of fact, it would be rational to suppose that the lord, in the varieties of place, audience, and occasion, in the dullness likewise of his disciples, and the perfection of the similes he chose, would again and again make use of the same. i now come to the second miracle of the group, namely that, recorded by all the evangelists except st john, of the cure of the man with the withered hand. this, like the preceding, was done in the synagogue. and i may remark, in passing, that all of this group, with the exception of the last--one of very peculiar circumstance--were performed upon the sabbath, and each gave rise to discussion concerning the lawfulness of the deed. st mark says they watched jesus to see whether he would heal the man on the sabbath-day; st luke adds that he knew their thoughts, and therefore met them with the question of its lawfulness; st matthew says they challenged him to the deed joy asking him whether it was lawful. the mere watching could hardly have taken place without the man's perceiving something in motion which had to do with him. but there is no indication of a request. there cannot surely be many who have reached half the average life of man without at some time having felt the body a burden in some way, and regarded a possible deliverance from it as an enfranchisement. if the spirit of man were fulfilled of the spirit of god, the body would simply be a living house, an obedient servant--yes, a humble mediator, by the senses, between his thoughts and god's thoughts; but when every breath has, as it were, to be sent for and brought hither with much labour and small consolation--when pain turns faith into a mere shadow of hope--when the withered limb hangs irresponsive, lost and cumbersome, an inert simulacrum of power, swinging lifeless to and fro;--then even the physical man understands his share in the groaning of the creation after the sonship. when, at a word issuing from such a mouth as that of jesus of nazareth, the poor, withered, distorted, contemptible hand obeyed and, responsive to the spirit within, spread forth its fingers, filled with its old human might, became capable once more of the grasp of friendship, of the caress of love, of the labour for the bread that sustains the life, little would the man care that other men--even rulers of synagogues, even scribes and pharisees, should question the rectitude of him who had healed him. the power which restored the gift of god and completed humanity, must be of god. argument upon argument might follow from old books and old customs and learned interpretations, wherein man set forth the will of god as different from the laws of his world, but the man whose hand was restored whole as the other, knew it fitting that his hands should match. they might talk; he would thank god for the crooked made straight. bewilder his judgment they might with their glosses upon commandment and observance; but they could not keep his heart from gladness; and, being glad, whom should he praise but god? if there was another giver of good things he knew nothing of him. the hand was now as god had meant it to be. nor could he behold the face of jesus, and doubt that such a man would do only that which was right. it was not satan, but god that had set him free. here, plainly by the record, our lord gave the man his share, not of mere acquiescence, but of active will, in the miracle. if man is the child of god, he must have a share in the works of the father. without such share in the work as faith gives, cure will be of little avail. "stretch forth thine hand," said the healer; and the man made the effort; and the withered hand obeyed, and was no more withered. _in_ the act came the cure, without which the act had been confined to the will, and had never taken form in the outstretching. it is the same in all spiritual redemption. think for a moment with what delight the man would employ his new hand. this right hand would henceforth be god's hand. but was not the other hand god's too?--god's as much as this? had not the power of god been always present in that left hand, whose unwithered life had ministered to him all these years? was it not the life of god that inspired his whole frame? by the loss and restoration in one part, he would understand possession in the whole. but as the withered and restored limb to the man, so is the maimed and healed man to his brethren. in every man the power by which he does the commonest things is the power of god. the power is not _of us_. our power does it; but we do not make the power. this, plain as it is, remains, however, the hardest lesson for a man to learn with conviction and thanksgiving. for god has, as it were, put us just so far away from him that we can exercise the divine thing in us, our own will, in returning towards our source. then we shall learn the fact that we are infinitely more great and blessed in being the outcome of a perfect self-constituting will, than we could be by the conversion of any imagined independence of origin into fact for us--a truth no man _can_ understand, feel, or truly acknowledge, save in proportion as he has become one with his perfect origin, the will of god. while opposition exists between the thing made and the maker, there can be but discord and confusion in the judgment of the creature. no true felicitous vision of the facts of the relation between his god and him; no perception of the mighty liberty constituted by the holy dependence wherein the will of god is the absolutely free choice of the man; no perception of a unity such as cannot exist between independent wills, but only in unspeakable love and tenderness between the causing will and the caused will, can yet have place. those who cannot see how the human will should be free in dependence upon the will of god, have not realized that the will of god made the will of man; that, when most it pants for freedom, the will of man is the child of the will of god, and therefore that there can be no natural opposition or strife between them. nay, more, the whole labour of god is that the will of man should be free as his will is free--in the same way that his will is free--by the perfect love of the man for that which is true, harmonious, lawful, creative. if a man say, "but might not the will of god make my will with the intent of over-riding and enslaving it?" i answer, such a will could not create, could not be god, for it involves the false and contrarious. that would be to make a will in order that it might be no will. to create in order to uncreate is something else than divine. but a free will is not the liberty to do whatever one likes, but the power of doing whatever one sees ought to be done, even in the very face of otherwise overwhelming impulse. there lies freedom indeed. i come now to the case of the man who had been paralysed for eight-and-thirty years. there is great pathos in the story. for many, at least, of these years, the man had haunted the borders of legendary magic, for i regard the statement about the angel troubling the pool as only the expression of a current superstition. oh, how different from the healing of our lord! what he had to bestow was free to all. the cure of no man by his hand weakened that hand for the cure of the rest. none were poorer that one was made rich. but this legend of the troubling of the pool fostered the evil passion of emulation, and that in a most selfish kind. nowhere in the divine arrangements is my gain another's loss. if it be said that this was the mode in which god determined which was to be healed, i answer that the effort necessary was contrary to all we admire most in humanity. according to this rule, sir philip sidney ought to have drunk the water which he handed to the soldier instead. does the doctrine of christ, and by that i insist we must interpret the ways of god, countenance a man's hurrying to be before the rest, and gain the boon in virtue t of having the least need of it, inasmuch as he was the ablest to run and plunge first into the eddies left by the fantastic angel? or if the triumph were to be gained by the help of friends, surely he was in most need of the cure who like this man--a man such as we hope there are few--had no friends either to plunge him in the waters of fabled hope, or to comfort him in the seasons of disappointment which alone divided the weary months of a life passed in empty expectation. but the master comes near. in him the power of life rests as in "its own calm home, its crystal shrine," and he that believeth in him shall not need to make haste. he knew it was time this man should be healed, and did not wait to be asked. indeed the man did not know him; did not even know his name. "wilt thou be made whole?" "sir, i have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while i am coming, another steppeth down before me." "rise, take up thy bed, and walk." our lord delays the cure in this case with no further speech. the man knows nothing about him, and he makes no demand upon his faith, except that of obedience. he gives him something to do at once. he will find him again by and by. the man obeys, takes up his bed, and walks. he sets an open path before us; _we_ must walk in it. more, we must be willing to believe that the path is open, that we have strength to walk in it. god's gift glides into man's choice. it is needful that we should follow with our effort in the track of his foregoing power. to refuse is to destroy the gift. his cure is not for such as choose to be invalids. they must be willing to be made whole, even if it should involve the carrying of their beds and walking. some keep in bed who have strength enough to get up and walk. there is a self-care and a self-pity, a laziness and conceit of incapacity, which are as unhealing for the body as they are unhealthy in the mind, corrupting all dignity and destroying all sympathy. who but invalids need like miracles wrought in them? yet some invalids are not cured because they will not be healed. they will not stretch out the hand; they will not rise; they will not walk; above all things, they will not work. yet for their illness it may be that the work so detested is the only cure, or if no cure yet the best amelioration. labour is not in itself an evil like the sickness, but often a divine, a blissful remedy. nor is the duty or the advantage confined to those who ought to labour for their own support. no amount of wealth sets one free from the obligation to work--in a world the god of which is ever working. he who works not has not yet discovered what god made him for, and is a false note in the orchestra of the universe. the possession of wealth is as it were pre-payment, and involves an obligation of honour to the doing of correspondent work. he who does not know what to do has never seriously asked himself what he ought to do. but there is a class of persons, the very opposite of these, who, as extremes meet, fall into a similar fault. they will not be healed either. they will not take the repose in which god giveth to his beloved. some sicknesses are to be cured with rest, others with labour. the right way is all--to meet the sickness as god would have it met, to submit or to resist according to the conditions of cure. whatsoever is not of faith is sin; and she who will not go to her couch and rest in the lord, is to blame even as she who will not rise and go to her work. there is reason to suppose that this man had brought his infirmity upon himself--i do not mean by the mere neglect of physical laws, but by the doing of what he knew to be wrong. for the lord, although he allowed the gladness of the deliverance full sway at first, when he found him afterwards did not leave him without the lesson that all health and well-being depend upon purity of life: "behold, thou art made whole: sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee." it is the only case of recorded cure in which jesus gives a warning of the kind. therefore i think the probability is as i have stated it. hence, the fact that we may be ourselves to blame for our sufferings is no reason why we should not go to god to deliver us from them. david the king knew this, and set it forth in that grand poem, the th psalm. in the very next case we find that jesus will not admit the cause of the man's condition, blindness from his birth, to be the sin either of the man himself, or of his parents. the probability seems, to judge from their behaviour in the persecution that followed, that both the man and his parents were people of character, thought, and honourable prudence. he was born blind, jesus said, "that the works of god should be made manifest in him." what works, then? the work of creation for one, rather than the work of healing. the man had suffered nothing in being born blind. god had made him only not so blessed as his fellows, with the intent of giving him equal faculty and even greater enjoyment afterwards, with the honour of being employed for the revelation of his works to men. in him jesus created sight before men's eyes. for, as at the first god said, "let there be light," so the work of god is still to give light to the world, and jesus must work his work, and _be_ the light of the world--light in all its degrees and kinds, reaching into every corner where work may be done, arousing sleepy hearts, and opening blind eyes. jesus saw the man, the disciples asked their question, and he had no sooner answered it, than "he spat on the ground, made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay."--why this mediating clay? why the spittle and the touch?--because the man who could not see him must yet be brought into sensible contact with him--must know that the healing came from the man who touched him. our lord took pains about it because the man was blind. and for the man's share in the miracle, having blinded him a second time as it were with clay, he sends him to the pool to wash it away: clay and blindness should depart together by the act of the man's faith. it was as if the lord said, "i blinded thee: now, go and see." here, then, are the links of the chain by which the lord bound the man to himself. the voice, if heard by the man, which defended him and his parents from the judgment of his disciples; the assertion that he was the light of the world--a something which others had and the blind man only knew as not possessed by him; the sound of the spitting on the ground; the touch of the speaker's fingers; the clay on his eyes; the command to wash; the journey to the pool; the laving water; the astonished sight. "he went his way, therefore, and washed, and came seeing." but who can imagine, save in a conception only less dim than the man's blindness, the glory which burst upon him when, as the restoring clay left his eyes, the light of the world invaded his astonished soul? the very idea may well make one tremble. blackness of darkness--not an invading stranger, but the home-companion always there--the negation never understood because the assertion was unknown--creation not erased and treasured in the memory, but to his eyes uncreated!--blackness of darkness!.... the glory of the celestial blue! the towers of the great jerusalem dwelling in the awful space! the room! the life! the tenfold-glorified being! any wonder might follow on such a wonder. and the whole vision was as fresh as if he had that moment been created, the first of men. but the best remained behind. a man had said, "i am the light of the world," and lo! here was the light of the world. the words had been vague as a dark form in darkness, but now the thing itself had invaded his innermost soul. but the face of the man who was this light of the world he had not seen. the creator of his vision he had not yet beheld. but he believed in him, for he defended him from the same charge of wickedness from which jesus had defended him. "give god the praise," they said; "we know that this man is a sinner." "god heareth not sinners," he replied; "and this man hath opened my eyes." it is no wonder that when jesus found him and asked him, "dost thou believe on the son of god?" he should reply, "who is he, lord, that i might believe on him?" he was ready. he had only to know which was he, that he might worship him. here at length was the light of the world before him--the man who had said, "i am the light of the world," and straightway the world burst upon him in light! would this man ever need further proof that there was indeed a god of men? i suspect he had a grander idea of the son of god than any of his disciples as yet. the would-be refutations of experience, for "since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind;" the objections of the religious authorities, "this man is not of god, because he keepeth not the sabbath day;" endless possible perplexities of the understanding, and questions of the _how_ and the _why_, could never touch that man to the shaking of his confidence: "one thing i know, that whereas i was blind, now i see." the man could not convince the jews that jesus must be a good man; neither could he doubt it himself, whose very being, body and soul and spirit, had been enlightened and glorified by him. with light in the eyes, in the brain, in the heart, light permeating and unifying his physical and moral nature, asserting itself in showing the man to himself one whole--how could he doubt! the miracles were for the persons on whom they passed. to the spectators they were something, it is true; but they were of unspeakable value to, and of endless influence upon their subjects. the true mode in which they reached others was through the healed themselves. and the testimony of their lives would go far beyond the testimony of their tongues. their tongues could but witness to a fact; their lives could witness to a truth. in this miracle as in all the rest, jesus did in little the great work of the father; for how many more are they to whom god has given the marvel of vision than those blind whom the lord enlightened! the remark will sound feeble and far-fetched to the man whose familiar spirit is that mephistopheles of the commonplace. he who uses his vision only for the care of his body or the indulgence of his mind--how should he understand the gift of god in its marvel? but the man upon whose soul the grandeur and glory of the heavens and the earth and the sea and the fountains of waters have once arisen will understand what a divine _invention_, what a mighty gift of god is this very common thing--these eyes to see with--that light which enlightens the world, this sight which is the result of both. he will understand what a believer the man born blind must have become, yea, how the mighty inburst of splendour might render him so capable of believing that nothing should be too grand and good for him to believe thereafter--not even the doctrine hardest to commonplace humanity, though the most natural and reasonable to those who have beheld it--that the god of the light is a faithful, loving, upright, honest, and self-denying being, yea utterly devoted to the uttermost good of those whom he has made. such is the father of lights who enlightens the world and every man that cometh into it. every pulsation of light on every brain is from him. every feeling of law and order is from him. every hint of right, every desire after the true, whatever we call aspiration, all longing for the light, every perception that this is true, that that ought to be done, is from the father of lights. his infinite and varied light gathered into one point--for how shall we speak at all of these things if we do not speak in figures?--concentrated and embodied in jesus, became _the_ light of the world. for the light is no longer only diffused, but in him man "beholds the light _and whence it flows_." not merely is our chamber enlightened, but we see the lamp. and so we turn again to god, the father of lights, yea even of the light of the world. henceforth we know that all the light wherever diffused has its centre in god, as the light that enlightened the blind man flowed from its centre in jesus. in other words, we have a glimmering, faint, human perception of the absolute glory. we know what god is in recognizing him as our god. jesus did the works of the father. the next miracle--recorded by st luke alone--is the cure of the man with the dropsy, wrought also upon the sabbath, but in the house of one of the chief of the pharisees. thither our lord had gone to an entertainment, apparently large, for the following parable is spoken "to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms." [footnote: . not _rooms_, but _reclining places_ at the table.] hence the possibility at least is suggested, that the man was one of the guests. no doubt their houses were more accessible than ours, and it was not difficult for one uninvited to make his way in, especially upon occasion of such a gathering. but i think the word translated _before him_ means _opposite to him_ at the table; and that the man was not too ill to appear as a guest. the "took him and healed him and let him go," of our translation, is against the notion rather, but merely from its indefiniteness being capable of meaning that he sent him away; but such is not the meaning of the original. that merely implies that he _took him_, went to him and laid his hands upon him, thus connecting the cure with himself, and then released him, set him free, took his hands off him, turning at once to the other guests and justifying himself by appealing to their own righteous conduct towards the ass and the ox. i think the man remained reclining at the table, to enjoy the appetite of health at a good meal; if, indeed, the gladness of the relieved breath, the sense of lightness and strength, the consciousness of a restored obedience of body, not to speak of the presence of him who had cured him, did not make him too happy to care about his dinner. i come now to the last of the group, exceptional in its nature, inasmuch as it was not the curing of a disease or natural defect, but the reparation of an injury, or hurt at least, inflicted by one of his own followers. this miracle also is recorded by st luke alone. the other evangelists relate the occasion of the miracle, but not the miracle itself; they record the blow, but not the touch. i shall not, therefore, compare their accounts, which have considerable variety, but no inconsistency. i shall confine myself to the story as told by st luke. peter, intending, doubtless, to cleave the head of a servant of the high priest who had come out to take jesus, with unaccustomed hand, probably trembling with rage and perhaps with fear, missed his well-meant aim, and only cut off the man's ear. jesus said, "suffer ye thus far." i think the words should have a point of interrogation after them, to mean, "is it thus far ye suffer?" "is this the limit of your patience?" but i do not know. with the words, "he touched his ear and healed him." hardly had the wound reached the true sting of its pain, before the gentle hand of him whom the servant had come to drag to the torture, dismissed the agony as if it had never been. whether he restored the ear, or left the loss of it for a reminder to the man of the part he had taken against his lord, and the return the lord had made him, we do not know. neither do we know whether he turned back ashamed and contrite, now that in his own person he had felt the life that dwelt in jesus, or followed out the capture to the end. possibly the blow of peter was the form which the favour of god took, preparing the way, like the blindness from the birth, for the glory that was to be manifested in him. but the lord would countenance no violence done in his defence. they might do to him as they would. if his father would not defend him, neither would he defend himself. within sight of the fearful death that awaited him, his heart was no whit hardened to the pain of another. neither did it make any difference that it was the pain of an enemy--even an enemy who was taking him to the cross. there was suffering; here was healing. he came to do the works of him that sent him. he did good to them that hated him, for his father is the saviour of men, saving "them out of their distresses." v. miracles of healing solicited by the sufferers. i come now to the second group of miracles, those granted to the prayers of the sufferers. but before i make any general remarks on the speciality of these, i must speak of one case which appears to lie between the preceding group and this. it is that of the woman who came behind jesus in the crowd; and involves peculiar difficulties, in connection with the facts which render its classification uncertain. at capernaum, apparently, our lord was upon his way with jairus to visit his daughter, accompanied by a crowd of people who had heard the request of the ruler of the synagogue. a woman who had been ill for twelve years, came behind him and touched the hem of his garment. this we may regard as a prayer in so far as she came to him, saying "within herself, if i may but touch his garment, i shall be whole." but, on the other hand, it was no true prayer in as far as she expected to be healed without the knowledge and will of the healer. although she came to him, she did not ask him to heal her. she thought with innocent theft to steal from him a cure. what follows according to st matthew's account, occasions me no difficulty. he does not say that the woman was cured by the touch; he says nothing of her cure until jesus had turned and seen her, and spoken the word to her, whereupon he adds: "and the woman was made whole from that hour." but st mark and st luke represent that the woman was cured upon the touch, and that the cure was only confirmed afterwards by the words of our lord. they likewise represent jesus as ignorant of what had taken place, except in so far as he knew that, without his volition, some cure had been wrought by contact with his person, of which he was aware by the passing from him of a saving influence. by this, in the heart of a crowd which pressed upon him so that many must have come into bodily contact with him, he knew that some one had touched him with special intent. no perplexity arises from the difference between the accounts, for there is only difference, not incongruity: the two tell more than the one; it is from the nature of the added circumstances that it springs, for those circumstances necessarily involve inquiries of the most difficult nature. nor can i in the least pretend to have satisfied myself concerning them. in the first place comes the mode of the cure, which _seems_ at first sight (dissociated, observe, from the will of the healer) to partake of the nature of magic--an influence without a sufficient origin. not for a moment would i therefore yield to an inclination to reject the testimony. i have no right to do so, for it deals with circumstances concerning which my ignorance is all but complete. i cannot rest, however, without seeking to come into some spiritual relation with the narrative, that is, to find some credible supposition upon which, without derogating from the lustre of the object of the whole history, the thing might take place. the difficulty, i repeat, is, that the woman could be cured by the garment of jesus, without (not against) the will of jesus. i think that the whole difficulty arises from our ignorance--a helpless ignorance--of the relations of thought and matter. i use the word _thought_ rather than spirit, because in reflecting upon spirit (which is thought), people generally represent to themselves a vague form of matter. all religion is founded on the belief or instinct--call it what we will--that matter is the result of mind, spirit, thought. the relation between them is therefore simply too close, too near for us to understand. here is what i am able to suggest concerning the account of the miracle as given by st mark and st luke. if even in what we call inanimate things there lies a healing power in various kinds; if, as is not absurd, there may lie in the world absolute cure existing in analysis, that is parted into a thousand kinds and forms, who can tell what cure may lie in a perfect body, informed, yea, caused, by a perfect spirit? if stones and plants can heal by the will of god in them, might there not dwell in the perfect health of a body, in which dwelt the son of god, a necessarily healing power? it may seem that in the fact of the many crowding about him, concerning whom we have no testimony of influence received, there lies a refutation of his supposition. but who can tell what he may have done even for them without their recognizing it save in conscious well-being? besides, those who crowded nearest him would mostly be of the strongest who were least in need of a physician, and in whose being consequently there lay not that bare open channel hungering for the precious life-current. and who can tell how the faith of the heart, calming or arousing the whole nature, may have rendered the very person of the woman more fit than the persons of others in the crowd to receive the sacred influence? for although she did not pray, she had the faith as alive though as small as the mustard seed. why might not health from the fountain of health flow then into the empty channel of the woman's weakness? it may have been so. i shrink from the subject, i confess, because of the vulgar forms such speculations have assumed in our days, especially in the hands of those who savour unspeakably more of the charlatan than the prophet. still, one must be honest and truthful even in regard to what he has to distinguish, as he can, into probable and impossible. fact is not the sole legitimate object of human inquiry. if it were, farewell to all that elevates and glorifies human nature--farewell to god, to religion, to hope! it is that which lies at the root of fact, yea, at the root of law, after which the human soul hungers and longs. in the preceding remarks i have anticipated a chapter to follow--a chapter of speculation, which may god make humble and right. but some remark was needful here. what must be to some a far greater difficulty has yet to be considered. it is the representation of the lord's ignorance of the cure, save from the reaction upon his own person of the influence which went out from him to fill that vacuum of suffering which the divine nature abhors: he did not know that his body was about to radiate health. but this gives me no concern. our lord himself tells us in one case, at least, that he did not know, that only his father knew. he could discern a necessary result in the future, but not the day or the hour thereof. omniscience is a consequence, not an essential of the divine nature. god knows because he creates. the father knows because he orders. the son knows because he obeys. the knowledge of the father must be perfect; such knowledge the son neither needs nor desires. his sole care is to do the will of the father. herein lies his essential divinity. although he knew that one of his apostles should betray him, i doubt much whether, when he chose judas, he knew that he was that one. we must take his own words as true. not only does he not claim perfect knowledge, but he disclaims it. he speaks once, at least, to his father with an _if it be possible_. those who believe omniscience essential to divinity, will therefore be driven to say that christ was not divine. this will be their punishment for placing knowledge on a level with love. no one who does so can worship in spirit and in truth, can lift up his heart in pure adoration. he will suppose he does, but his heaven will be in the clouds, not in the sky. but now we come to the holy of holies of the story--the divinest of its divinity. jesus could not leave the woman with the half of a gift. he could not let her away so poor. she had stolen the half: she must fetch the other half--come and take it from his hand. that is, she must know who had healed her. her will and his must come together; and for this her eyes and his, her voice and his ears, her ears and his voice must meet. it is the only case recorded in which he says _daughter_. it could not have been because she was younger than himself; there could not have been much difference between their ages in that direction. let us see what lies in the word. with the modesty belonging to her as a woman, intensified by the painful shrinking which had its origin in the peculiar nature of her suffering, she dared not present herself to the eyes of the lord, but thought merely to gather from under his table a crumb unseen. and i do not believe that our lord in calling her had any desire to make her tell her tale of grief, and, in her eyes, of shame. it would have been enough to him if she had come and stood before him, and said nothing. nor had she to appear before his face with only that poor remnant of strength which had sufficed to bring her to the hem of his garment behind him; for now she knew in herself that she was healed of her plague, and the consciousness must have been strength. yet she trembled when she came. filled with awe and gratitude, she could not stand before him; she fell down at his feet. there, hiding her face in her hands, i presume, she forgot the surrounding multitude, and was alone in the chamber of her consciousness with the son of man. her love, her gratitude, her holy awe unite in an impulse to tell him all. when the lower approaches the higher in love, even between men, the longing is to be known; the prayer is "know me." this was david's prayer to god, "search me and know me." there should be no more concealment. besides, painful as it was to her to speak, he had a right to know all, and know it he should. it was her sacrifice offered unto the lord. she told him all the truth. to conceal anything from him now would be greater pain than to tell all, for the thing concealed would be as a barrier between him and her; she would be simple--one-fold; her whole being should lie open before him. i do not for a moment mean that such thoughts, not to say words, took shape in her mind; but sometimes we can represent a single consciousness only by analysing it into twenty thoughts. and he accepted the offering. he let her speak, and tell all. but it was painful. he understood it well. his heart yearned towards the woman to shield her from her own innocent shame, to make as it were a heaven about her whose radiance should render it "by clarity invisible." her story appealed to all that was tenderest in humanity; for the secret which her modesty had hidden, her conscience had spoken aloud. therefore the tenderest word that the language could afford must be hers. "daughter," he said. it was the fullest reward, the richest acknowledgment he could find of the honour in which he held her, his satisfaction with her conduct, and the perfect love he bore her. the degrading spirit of which i have spoken, the spirit of the commonplace, which lowers everything to the level of its own capacity of belief, will say that the word was an eastern mode in more common use than with us. i say that whatever jesus did or said, he did and said like other men--he did and said as no other man did or said. if he said _daughter_, it meant what any man would mean by it; it meant what no man could mean by it--what no man was good enough, great enough, loving enough to mean by it. in him the father spoke to this one the eternal truth of his relation to all his daughters, to all the women he has made, though individually it can be heard only by those who lift up the filial eyes, lay bare the filial heart. he did the works, he spoke the words of him that sent him. well might this woman, if she dared not lift the downcast eye before the men present, yet depart in shameless peace: he who had healed her had called her _daughter_. everything on earth is paltry before such a word. it was the deepest gift of the divine nature--the recognition of the eternal in her by him who had made it. between the true father and the true daughter nothing is painful. i think also that very possibly some compunction arose in her mind, the moment she knew herself healed, at the mode in which she had gained her cure. hence when the lord called her she may have thought he was offended with her because of it. possibly her contrition for the little fault, if fault indeed it was, may have increased the agony of feeling with which she forced rather than poured out her confession. but he soothes her with gentle, consoling, restoring words: "be of good comfort." he heals the shy suffering spirit, "wherein old dints of deep wounds did remain." he confirms the cure she feared perhaps might be taken from her again. "go in peace, and be whole of thy plague." nay, more, he attributes her cure to her own faith. "thy faith hath made thee whole." what wealth of tenderness! she must not be left in her ignorance to the danger of associating power with the mere garment of the divine. she must be brought face to face with her healer. she must not be left kneeling on the outer threshold of the temple. she must be taken to the heart of the saviour, and so redeemed, then only redeemed utterly. there is no word, no backward look of reproach upon the thing she had condemned. if it was evil it was gone from between them for ever. confessed, it vanished. her faith was an ignorant faith, but, however obscured in her consciousness, it was a true faith. she believed in the man, and our lord loved the modesty that kept her from pressing into his presence. it may indeed have been the very strength of her faith working in her ignorance that caused her to extend his power even to the skirts of his garments. and there he met the ignorance, not with rebuke, but with the more grace. if even her ignorance was so full of faith, of what mighty confidence was she not capable! even the skirt of his garment would minister to such a faith. it should be as she would. through the garment of his son, the father would cure her who believed enough to put forth her hand and touch it. the kernel-faith was none the worse that it was closed in the uncomely shell of ignorance and mistake. the lord was satisfied with it. when did he ever quench the smoking flax? see how he praises her. he is never slow to commend. the first quiver of the upturning eyelid is to him faith. he welcomes the sign, and acknowledges it; commends the feeblest faith in the ignorant soul, rebukes it as little only in apostolic souls where it ought to be greater. "thy faith hath saved thee." however poor it was, it was enough for that. between death and the least movement of life there is a gulf wider than that fixed between the gates of heaven and the depths of hell. he said "_daughter_." i come now to the first instance of plain request--that of the leper who fell down before him, saying, "lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean"--a prayer lovely in the simplicity of its human pleading--appeal to the power which lay in the man to whom he spoke: his power was the man's claim; the relation between them was of the strongest--that between plenty and need, between strength and weakness, between health and disease--poor bonds comparatively between man and man, for man's plenty, strength, and health can only supplement, not satisfy the need; support the weakness, not change it into strength; mitigate the disease of his fellow, not slay it with invading life; but in regard to god, all whose power is creative, any necessity of his creatures is a perfect bond between them and him; his magnificence must flow into the channels of the indigence he has created. observe how jesus responds in the terms of the man's request. the woman found the healing where she sought it--in the hem of his garment. one man says, "come with me;" the lord goes. another says, "come not under my roof, i am not worthy;" the lord remains. here the man says, "if thou wilt;" the lord answers, "i will." but he goes far beyond the man's request. i need say nothing of the grievous complaint under which he laboured. it was sore to the mind as well as the body, for it made of the man an outcast and ashamed. no one would come near him lest he should share his condemnation. physical evil had, as it were, come to the surface in him. he was "full of leprosy." men shrink more from skin-diseases than from any other.[ ] [footnote : and they are amongst the hardest to cure; just as the skin-diseases of the soul linger long after the heart is greatly cured. witness the petulance, fastidiousness, censoriousness, social self-assertion, general disagreeableness of so many good people--all in the moral skin--repulsive exceedingly. i say good people; i do not say _very good_, nor do i say christ-_like_, for that they are not.] jesus could have cured him with a word. there was no need he should touch him. _no need_ did i say? there was every need. for no one else would touch him. the healthy human hand, always more or less healing, was never laid on him; he was despised and rejected. it was a poor thing for the lord to cure his body; he must comfort and cure his sore heart. of all men a leper, i say, needed to be touched with the hand of love. spenser says, "entire affection hateth nicer hands." it was not for our master, our brother, our ideal man, to draw around him the skirts of his garments and speak a lofty word of healing, that the man might at least be clean before he touched him. the man was his brother, and an evil disease cleaved fast unto him. out went the loving hand to the ugly skin, and there was his brother as he should be--with the flesh of a child. i thank god that the touch went before the word. nor do i think it was the touch of a finger, or of the finger-tips. it was a kindly healing touch in its nature as in its power. oh blessed leper! thou knowest henceforth what kind of a god there is in the earth--not the god of the priests, but a god such as himself only can reveal to the hearts of his own. that touch was more than the healing. it was to the leper what the word _daughter_ was to the woman in the crowd, what the _neither do i_ was to the woman in the temple--the sign of the perfect presence. outer and inner are one with him: the outermost sign is the revelation of the innermost heart. let me linger one moment upon this coming together of creative health and destroying disease. the health must flow forth; the disease could not enter: jesus was not defiled by the touch. not that even if he would have been, he would have shrunk and refrained; he respected the human body in most evil case, and thus he acknowledged it his own. but my reader must call up for himself the analogies--only i cannot admit that they are mere analogies--between the cure of the body and the cure of the soul: here they were combined in one act, for that touch went to the man's heart. i can only hint at them here. hand to hand is enough for the cure of the bodily disease; but heart to heart will jesus visit the man who in deepest defilement of evil habits, yet lifts to him a despairing cry. the healthful heart of the lord will cure the heart spotted with the plague: it will come again as the heart of a child. _only this kind goeth not out save by prayer and abstinence_. the lord gave him something to do at once, and something not to do. he was to go to the priest, and to hold his tongue. it is easier to do than to abstain; he went to the priest; he did not hold his tongue. that the lord should send him to the priest requires no explanation. the sacred customs of his country our lord in his own person constantly recognized. that he saw in them more than the priests themselves was no reason for passing them by. the testimony which he wished the man to bear concerning him lay in the offering of the gift which moses had commanded. his healing was in harmony with all the forms of the ancient law; for it came from the same source, and would in the lapse of ages complete what the law had but begun. this the man was to manifest for him. the only other thing he required of him--silence--the man would not, at least did not, yield. the probability is that he needed the injunction for his own sake more than for the master's sake; that he was a talkative, demonstrative man, whose better life was ever in danger of evaporating in words; and that the lord required silence of him, that he might think, and give the seed time to root itself well before it shot its leaves out into the world. are there not some in our own day, who, having had a glimpse of truth across the darkness of a moral leprosy, instantly begin to blaze abroad the matter, as if it were their part at once to call to their fellows, and teach them out of an intellectual twilight, in which they can as yet see men only as trees walking, instead of retiring into the wilderness, for a time at least, to commune with their own hearts, and be still? but he meant well, nor is it any wonder that such a man should be incapable of such a sacrifice. the lord had touched him. his nature was all in commotion with gratitude. his self-conceit swelled high. his tongue would not be still. perhaps he judged himself a leper favoured above his fellow-lepers. nothing would more tend to talkativeness than such a selfish mistake. he would be grateful. he would befriend his healer against his will. he would work for him--alas! only to impede the labours of the wise; for the lord found his popularity a great obstacle to the only success he sought. "he went out and began to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that jesus could no more openly enter into the city." his nature could not yet understand the kingdom that cometh not with observation, and from presumption mingled with affection, he would serve the lord after a better fashion than that of doing his will. and he had his reward. he had his share in bringing his healer to the cross. obedience is the only service. * * * * * i take now the cure of the ten lepers, done apparently in a village of galilee towards samaria. they stood afar off in a group, probably afraid of offending him by any nearer approach, and cried aloud, "jesus, master, have mercy on us." instead of at once uttering their cure, he desired them to go and show themselves to the priests. this may have been partly for the sake of the priests, partly perhaps for the justification of his own mission, but more certainly for the sake of the men themselves, that he might, in accordance with his frequent practice, give them something wherein to be obedient. it served also, as the sequel shows, to individualize their relation to him. the relation as a group was not sufficient for the men. between him and them it must be the relation of man to man. individual faith must, as it were, break up the group--to favour a far deeper reunion. its bond was now a common suffering; it must be changed to a common faith in the healer of it. his intention wrought in them--at first with but small apparent result. they obeyed, and went to go to the priests, probably wondering whether they would be healed or not, for the beginnings of faith are so small that they can hardly be recognized as such. going, they found themselves cured. nine of them held on their way, obedient; while the tenth, forgetting for the moment in his gratitude the word of the master, turned back and fell at his feet. a moral martinet, a scribe, or a pharisee, might have said "the nine were right, the tenth was wrong: he ought to have kept to the letter of the command." not so the master: he accepted the gratitude as the germ of an infinite obedience. real love is obedience and all things beside. the lord's own devotion was that which burns up the letter with the consuming fire of love, fulfilling and setting it aside. high love needs no letter to guide it. doubtless the letter is all that weak faith is capable of, and it is well for those who keep it! but it is ill for those who do not outgrow and forget it! forget it, i say, _by outgrowing it_. the lord cared little for the letter of his own commands; he cared all for the spirit, for that was life. this man was a stranger, as the jews called him, a samaritan. therefore the lord praised him to his followers. it was as if he had said, "see, jews, who think yourselves the great praisers of god! here are ten lepers cleansed: where are the nine? one comes back to glorify god--a samaritan!" to the man himself he says, "arise, go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole." again this commending of individual faith! "was it not the faith of the others too that had healed them?" doubtless. if they had had enough to bring them back, he would have told them that their faith had saved them. but they were content to be healed, and until their love, which is the deeper faith, brought them to the master's feet, their faith was not ripe for praise. but it was not for their blame, it was for the samaritan's praise that he spoke. probably this man's faith had caused the cry of all the ten; probably he was the salt of the little group of outcasts--the tenth, the righteous man. hence they were contented, for the time, with their cure: he forgot the cure itself in his gratitude. a moment more, and with obedient feet he would overtake them on their way to the priest. i may not find a better place for remarking on the variety of our lord's treatment of those whom he cured; that is, the variety of the form in which he conveyed the cure. in the record i do not think we find two cases treated in the same manner. there is no massing of the people with him. in his behaviour to men, just as in their relation to his father, every man is alone with him. in this case of the ten, as i have said, i think he sent them away, partly, that this individuality might have an opportunity of asserting itself. they had stood afar off, therefore he could not lay the hand of love on each. but now one left the group and brought his gratitude to the master's feet, and with a loud voice glorified god the healer. in reflecting then on the details of the various cures we must seek the causes of their diversity mainly in the individual differences of the persons cured, not forgetting, at the same time, that all the accounts are brief, and that our capacity is poor for the task. the whole divine treatment of man is that of a father to his children--only a father infinitely more a father than any man can be. before him stands each, as much an individual child as if there were no one but him. the relation is awful in its singleness. even when god deals with a nation as a nation, it is only as by this dealing the individual is aroused to a sense of his own wrong, that he can understand how the nation has sinned, or can turn himself to work a change. the nation cannot change save as its members change; and the few who begin the change are the elect of that nation. ten righteous individuals would have been just enough to restore life to the festering masses of sodom--festering masses because individual life had ceased, and the nation or community was nowhere. even nine could not do it: sodom must perish. the individuals must perish now; the nation had perished long since. all communities are for the divine sake of individual life, for the sake of the love and truth that is in each heart, and is not cumulative--cannot be in two as one result. but all that is precious in the individual heart depends for existence on the relation the individual bears to other individuals: alone--how can he love? alone--where is his truth? it is for and by the individuals that the individual lives. a community is the true development of individual relations. its very possibility lies in the conscience of its men and women. no setting right can be done in the _mass_. there are no masses save in corruption. vital organizations result alone from individualities and consequent necessities, which fitting the one into the other, and working for each other, make combination not only possible but unavoidable. then the truth which has _informed_ in the community reacts on the individual to perfect his individuality. in a word, the man, in virtue of standing alone in god, stands _with_ his fellows, and receives from them divine influences without which he cannot be made perfect. it is in virtue of the living consciences of its individuals that a common conscience is possible to a nation. i cannot work this out here, but i would avoid being misunderstood. although i say, every man stands alone in god, i yet say two or many can meet in god as they cannot meet save in god; nay, that only in god can two or many truly meet; only as they recognize their oneness with god can they become one with each other. in the variety then of his individual treatment of the sick, jesus did the works of his father _as_ his father does them. for the spirit of god speaks to the spirit of the man, and the providence of god arranges everything for the best good of the individual--counting the very hairs of his head. every man had a cure of his own; every woman had a cure of her own--all one and the same in principle, each individual in the application of the principle. this was the foundation of the true church. and yet the members of that church will try to separate upon individual and unavoidable differences! but once more the question recurs: why say so often that this and that one's faith had saved him? was it not enough that he had saved them?--our lord would knit the bond between him and each man by arousing the man's individuality, which is, in deepest fact, his conscience. the cure of a man depended upon no uncertain or arbitrary movement of the feelings of jesus. he was always ready to heal. no one was ever refused who asked him. it rested with the man: the healing could not have its way and enter in, save the man would open his door. it was there for him if he would take it, or rather when he would allow him to bestow it. hence the question and the praise of the patient's faith. there was no danger then of that diseased self-consciousness which nowadays is always asking, "have i faith? have i faith?" searching, in fact, for grounds of self-confidence, and turning away the eyes in the search from the only source whence confidence can flow--the natal home of power and love. how shall faith be born but of the beholding of the faithful? this diseased self-contemplation was not indeed a jewish complaint at all, nor possible in the bodily presence of the master. hence the praise given to a man's faith could not hurt him; it only made him glad and more faithful still. this disease itself is in more need of his curing hand than all the leprosies of judaea and samaria. the cases which remain of this group are of blind men--the first, that recorded by st matthew of the two who followed jesus, crying, "thou son of david, have mercy on us." he asked them if they believed that he was able to do the thing for them, drawing, i say, the bond between them closer thereby. they said they did believe it, and at once he touched their eyes--again the bodily contact, as in the case of the blind man already considered--especially needful in the case of the blind, to associate the healing with the healer. but there are differences between the cases. the man who had not asked to be healed was as it were put through a longer process of cure--i think that his faith and his will might be called into exercise; and the bodily contact was made closer to help the development of his faith and will: he made clay and put it on his eyes, and the man had to go and wash. where the prayer and the confession of faith reveal the spiritual contact already effected, the cure is immediate. "according to your faith," the lord said, "be it unto you." on these men, as on the leper, he laid the charge of silence, by them, as by him, sadly disregarded. the fact that he went into the house, and allowed them to follow him there before he cured them, also shows that he desired in their case, doubtless because of circumstances, to avoid publicity, a desire which they foiled. their gladness overcame, if not their gratitude, yet the higher faith that is one with obedience. when the other leper turned back to speak his gratitude, it was but the delay of a moment in the fulfilling of the command. but the gratitude that disobeys an injunction, that does what the man is told not to do, and so plunges into the irretrievable, is a virtue that needs a development amounting almost to a metamorphosis. in the one remaining case there is a slight confusion in the records. st luke says that it was performed as jesus entered into jericho; st mark says it was as he went out of jericho, and gives the name and parentage of the blind beggar; indeed his account is considerably more minute than that of the others. st matthew agrees with st mark as to the occasion, but says there were two blind men. we shall follow the account of st mark. bartimaeus, having learned the cause of the tumultuous passing of feet, calls, like those former two blind men, upon the son of david to have mercy on him.[ ] [footnote : in these two cases, the cry is upon the _son of david_: i wonder if this had come to be considered by the blind the correct formula of address to the new prophet. but the cases are almost too few to justify even a passing conjecture at generalization.] the multitude finds fault with his crying and calling. i presume he was noisy in his eagerness after his vanished vision, and the multitude considered it indecorous. or perhaps the rebuke arose from that common resentment of a crowd against any one who makes himself what they consider unreasonably conspicuous, claiming a share in the attention of the potentate to which they cannot themselves pretend. but the lord stops, and tells them to call the man; and some of them, either being his friends, or changing their tone when the great man takes notice of him, begin to congratulate and comfort him. he, casting away his garment in his eagerness, rises, and is led through the yielding crowd to the presence of the lord. to enter in some degree into the personal knowledge of the man before curing him, and to consolidate his faith, jesus, the tones of whose voice, full of the life of god, the cultivated hearing of a blind man would be best able to interpret, began to talk a little with him. "what wilt thou that i should do unto thee?" "lord, that i might receive my sight." "go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole." immediately he saw; and the first use he made of his sight was to follow him who had given it. neither st mark nor st luke, whose accounts are almost exactly the same, says that he touched the man's eyes. st matthew says he touched the eyes of the _two_ blind men whom his account places in otherwise identical circumstances. with a surrounding crowd who knew them, i think the touching was less necessary than in private; but there is no need to inquire which is the more correct account. the former two may have omitted a fact, or st matthew _may_ have combined the story with that of the two blind men already noticed, of which he is the sole narrator. but in any case there are, i think, but two recorded instances of the blind praying for cure. most likely there were more, perhaps there were many such. i have now to consider, as suggested by the idea of this group, the question of prayer generally; for jesus did the works of him who sent him: as jesus did so god does. i have not seen an argument against what is called the efficacy of prayer which appears to me to have any force but what is derived from some narrow conception of the divine nature. if there be a god at all, it is absurd to suppose that his ways of working should be such as to destroy his side of the highest relation that can exist between him and those whom he has cared to make--to destroy, i mean, the relation of the will of the creator to the individual will of his creature. that god should bind himself in an iron net of his own laws--that his laws should bind him in any way, seeing they are just his nature in action--is sufficiently absurd; but that such laws should interfere with his deepest relation to his creatures, should be inconsistent with the highest consequences of that creation which alone gives occasion for those laws--that, in fact, the will of god should be at strife with the foregoing action of god, not to say with the very nature of god--that he should, with an unchangeable order of material causes and effects, cage in for ever the winged aspirations of the human will which he has made in the image of his own will, towards its natural air of freedom in his will, would be pronounced inconceivable, were it not that it has been conceived and uttered--conceived and uttered, however, only by minds to which the fact of this relation was, if at all present, then only in the vaguest and most incomplete form. that he should not leave himself any _willing_ room towards those to whom he gave need, room to go wrong, will to turn and look up and pray and hope, is to me grotesquely absurd. it is far easier to believe that as both--the laws of nature, namely, and the human will--proceed from the same eternally harmonious thought, they too are so in harmony, that for the perfect operation of either no infringement upon the other is needful; and that what seems to be such infringement would show itself to a deeper knowledge of both as a perfectly harmonious co-operation. nor would it matter that we know so little, were it not that with each fresh discovery we are so ready to fancy anew that now, at last, we know all about it. we have neither humility enough to be faithful, nor faith enough to be humble. unfit to grasp any whole, yet with an inborn idea of wholeness which ought to be our safety in urging us ever on towards the unity, we are constantly calling each new part the whole, saying we have found the idea, and casting ourselves on the couch of self-glorification. thus the very need of unity is by our pride perverted to our ruin. we say we have found it, when we have it not. hence, also, it becomes easy to refuse certain considerations, yea, certain facts, a place in our system--for the system will cease to be a system at all the moment they are acknowledged. they may have in them the very germ of life and truth; but what is that, if they destroy this babylon that we have built? are not its forms stately and fair? yea, _can_ there be statelier and fairer? the main point is simply this, that what it would not be well for god to give before a man had asked for it, it may be not only well, but best, to give when he has asked. [footnote : _well_ and _best_ must be the same thing with god when he acts.] i believe that the first half of our training is up to the asking point; after that the treatment has a grand new element in it. for god can give when a man is in the fit condition to receive it, what he cannot give before because the man cannot receive it. how give instruction in the harmony of colours or tones to a man who cannot yet distinguish between shade and shade or tone and tone, upon which distinction all harmony depends? a man cannot receive except another will give; no more can a man give if another will not receive; he can only offer. doubtless, god works on every man, else he _could_ have no divine tendency at all; there would be no _thither_ for him to turn his face towards; there could be at best but a sense of want. but the moment the man has given in to god--to use a homely phrase--the spirit for which he prays can work in him all with him, not now (as it _appeared_ then) _against_ him. every parent at all worthy of the relation must know that occasions occur in which the asking of the child makes the giving of the parent the natural correlative. in a way infinitely higher, yet the same at the root, for all is of god, he can give when the man asks what he could not give without, because in the latter case the man would take only the husk of the gift, and cast the kernel away--a husk poisonous without the kernel, although wholesome and comforting with it. but some will say, "we may ask, but it is certain we shall not have everything we ask for." no, thank god, certainly not; we shall have nothing which we ourselves, when capable of judging and choosing with open eyes to its true relation to ourselves, would not wish and choose to have. if god should give otherwise, it must be as a healing punishment of inordinate and hurtful desire. the parable of the father dividing his living at the prayer of the younger son, must be true of god's individual sons, else it could not have been true of the jews on the one hand and the gentiles on the other. he will grant some such prayers because he knows that the swine and their husks will send back his son with quite another prayer on his lips. if my supposed interlocutor answers, "what then is the good of praying, if it is not to go by what i want?" i can only answer, "you have to learn, and it may be by a hard road." in the kinds of things which men desire, there are essential differences. in physical well-being, there is a divine good. in sufficient food and raiment, there is a divine fitness. in wealth, as such, there is _none_. a man may pray for money to pay his debts, for healing of the sickness which incapacitates him for labour or good work, for just judgment in the eyes of his fellow-men, with an altogether different confidence from that with which he could pray for wealth, or for bodily might to surpass his fellows, or for vengeance upon those whose judgment of his merits differed from his own; although even then the divine soul will with his saviour say, "if it be possible: not my will but thine." for he will know that god gives only the best. "but god does not even cure every one who asks him. and so with the other things you say are good to pray for." jesus did not cure all the ills in judaea. but those he did cure were at least real ills and real needs. there was a fitness in the condition of some, a fitness favoured by his own bodily presence amongst them, which met the virtue ready to go out from him. but god is ever present, and i have yet to learn that any man prayed for money to be honest with and to meet the necessities of his family, and did the work of him who had called him from the market-place of the nation, who did not receive his penny a-day. if to any one it seems otherwise, i believe the apparent contradiction will one day be cleared up to his satisfaction. god has not to satisfy the judgment of men as they are, but as they will be and must be, having learned the high and perfectly honest and grand way of things which is his will. for god to give men just what they want would often be the same as for a man to give gin to the night-wanderer whom he had it in his power to take home and set to work for wages. but i must believe that many of the ills of which men complain would be speedily cured if they would work in the strength of prayer. if the man had not taken up his bed when christ bade him, he would have been a great authority with the scribes and chief priests against the divine mission of jesus. the power to work is a diviner gift than a great legacy. but these are individual affairs to be settled individually between god and his child. they cannot be pronounced upon generally because of individual differences. but here as there, now as then, the lack is _faith_. a man may say, "how can i have faith?" i answer, "how can you indeed, who do the thing you know you ought not to do, and have not begun to do the thing you know you ought to do? how should you have faith? it is not well that you should be cured yet. it would have hurt these men to cure them if they would not ask. and you do not pray." the man who has prayed most is, i suspect, the least doubtful whether god hears prayer now as jesus heard it then. that we doubt is well, for we are not yet in the empyrean of simple faith. but i think the man who believes and prays now, has answers to his prayers even better than those which came to the sick in judæa; for although the bodily presence of jesus made a difference in their favour, i do believe that the spirit of god, after widening its channels for nearly nineteen hundred years, can flow in greater plenty and richness now. hence the answers to prayer must not only not be of quite the same character as then, but they must be better, coming yet closer to the heart of the need, whether known as such by him who prays, or not. but the change lies in man's power of reception, for god is always the same to his children. only, being infinite, he must speak to them and act for them in the endless diversity which their growth and change render necessary. thus only they can receive of his fulness who is all in all and unchangeable. in our imperfect condition both of faith and of understanding, the whole question of asking and receiving must necessarily be surrounded with mist and the possibility of mistake. it can be successfully encountered only by the man who for himself asks and hopes. it lies in too lofty regions and involves too many unknown conditions to be reduced to formulas of ours; for god must do only the best, and man is greater and more needy than himself can know. yet he who asks _shall_ receive--of the very best. one promise without reserve, and only one, because it includes all, remains: the promise of the holy spirit to them who ask it. he who has the spirit of god, god himself, in him, has the life in him, possesses the final cure of all ill, has in himself the answer to all possible prayer. vi. miracles granted to the prayer of friends. if we allow that prayer may in any case be heard for the man himself, it almost follows that it must be heard for others. it cannot well be in accordance with the spirit of christianity, whose essential expression lies in the sacrifice of its founder, that a man should be heard only when he prays for himself. the fact that in cases of the preceding group faith was required on the part of the person healed as essential to his cure, represents no different principle from that which operates in the cases of the present group. true, in these the condition is not faith on the part of the person cured, but faith on the part of him who asks for his cure. but the possession of faith by the patient was not in the least essential, as far as the power of jesus was concerned, to his bodily cure, although no doubt favourable thereto; it was necessary only to that spiritual healing, that higher cure, for the sake of which chiefly the master brought about the lower. in both cases, the requisition of faith is for the sake of those who ask--whether for themselves or for their friends, it matters not. it is a breath to blow the smoking flax into a flame--a word to draw into closer contact with himself. he cured many without such demand, as his father is ever curing without prayer. cure itself shall sometimes generate prayer and faith. well, therefore, might the cure of others be sometimes granted to prayer. beyond this, however, there is a great fitness in the thing. for so are men bound together, that no good can come to one but all must share in it. the children suffer for the father, the father suffers for the children, and they are also blessed together. if a spiritual good descend upon the heart of a leader of the nation, the whole people might rejoice for themselves, for they must be partakers of the unspeakable gift. to increase the faith of the father may be more for the faith of the child, healed in answer to his prayer, than anything done for the child himself. it is an enlarging of one of the many channels in which the divinest gifts flow. for those gifts chiefly, at first, flow to men through the hearts and souls of those of their fellows who are nearer the father than they, until at length they are thus brought themselves to speak to god face to face. lonely as every man in his highest moments of spiritual vision, yea in his simplest consciousness of duty, turns his face towards the one father, his own individual maker and necessity of his life; painfully as he may then feel that the best beloved understands not as he understands, feels not as he feels; he is yet, in his most isolated adoration of the father of his spirit, nearer every one of the beloved than when eye meets eye, heart beats responsive to heart, and the poor dumb hand seeks by varied pressure to tell the emotion within. often then the soul, with its many organs of utterance, feels itself but a songless bird, whose broken twitter hardens into a cage around it; but even with all those organs of utterance in full play, he is yet farther from his fellow-man than when he is praying to the father in a desert place apart. the man who prays, in proportion to the purity of his prayer, becomes a spiritual power, a nerve from the divine brain, yea, perhaps a ganglion as we call it, whence power anew goes forth upon his fellows. he is a redistributor, as it were, of the divine blessing; not in the exercise of his own will--that is the cesspool towards which all notions of priestly mediation naturally sink--but as the self-forgetting, god-loving brother of his kind, who would be in the world as christ was in the world. when a man prays for his fellow-man, for wife or child, mother or father, sister or brother or friend, the connection between the two is so close in god, that the blessing begged may well flow to the end of the prayer. such a one then is, in his poor, far-off way, an advocate with the father, like his master, jesus christ, the righteous. he takes his friend into the presence with him, or if not into the presence, he leaves him with but the veil between them, and they touch through the veil. the first instance we have in this kind, occurred at cana, in the centre of galilee, where the first miracle was wrought. it is the second miracle in st john's record, and is recorded by him only. doubtless these two had especially attracted his nature--the turning of water into wine, and the restoration of a son to his father. the fatherhood of god created the fatherhood in man; god's love man's love. and what shall he do to whom a son is given whom yet he cannot keep? the divine love in his heart cleaves to the child, and the child is vanishing! what can this nobleman do but seek the man of whom such wondrous rumours have reached his ears? between cana and tiberias, from which came the father with his prayer, was somewhere about twenty miles. "he is at the point of death," said the father. "except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe," said jesus. "sir, come down ere my child die." "go thy way, thy son liveth." if the nobleman might have understood the remark the lord made, he was in no mood for principles, and respectfully he expostulates with our lord for spending time in words when the need was so urgent. the sun of his life was going down into the darkness. he might deserve reproof, but even reproof has its season. "sir, come down ere my child die." whatever the lord meant by the words he urged it no farther. he sends him home with the assurance of the boy's recovery, showing him none of the signs or wonders of which he had spoken. had the man been of unbelieving kind he would, when he returned and found that all had occurred in the most natural fashion, that neither here had there been sign or wonder, have gradually reverted to his old carelessness as to a higher will and its ordering of things below. but instead of this, when he heard that the boy began to get better the very hour when jesus spoke the word--a fact quite easy to set down as a remarkable coincidence--he believed, and all his people with him. probably he was in ideal reality the head of his house, the main source of household influences--if such, then a man of faith, for, where a man does not himself look up to the higher, the lower will hardly look faithfully up to him--surely a fit man to intercede for his son, with all his house ready to believe with him. it may be said they too shared in the evidence--such as it was--not much of a sign or wonder to them. true; but people are not ready to believe the best evidence except they are predisposed in the direction of that evidence. if it be said, "they should have thought for themselves," i answer--to think with their head was no bad sign that they did think for themselves. a great deal of what is called freedom of thought is merely the self-assertion which would persuade itself of a freedom it would possess but cannot without an effort too painful for ignorance and self-indulgence. the man would _feel_ free without being free. to assert one's individuality is not necessarily to be free: it _may_ indeed be but the outcome of absolute slavery. but if this nobleman was a faithful man, whence our lord's word, "except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe"? i am not sure. it may have been as a rebuke to those about him. this man--perhaps, as is said, a nobleman of herod's court--may not have been a pure-bred jew, and hence our lord's remark would bear an import such as he uttered more plainly in the two cases following, that of the greek woman, and that of the roman centurion: "except _ye_ see signs and wonders ye will not believe; _but this man_--." with this meaning i should probably have been content, were it not that the words were plainly addressed to the man. i do not think this would destroy the interpretation, for the lord may have wished to draw the man out, and make him, a gentile or doubtful kind of jew, rebuke the disciples; only the man's love for his son stood in the way: he could think of nothing, speak of nothing save his son; but it makes it unsatisfactory. and indeed i prefer the following interpretation, because we have the other meaning in other places; also because this is of universal application, and to us of these days appears to me of special significance and value, applying to the men of science on the one hand, and the men of superstition on the other. my impression is, that our lord, seeing the great faith of the nobleman, grounded on what he had heard of the master from others, chiefly of his signs and wonders, did in this remark require of him a higher faith still. it sounds to me an expostulation with him. to express in the best way my feeling concerning it, i would dare to imagine our lord speaking in this fashion:-- "why did you not pray the father? why do you want always to _see_? the door of prayer has been open since ever god made man in his own image: why are signs and wonders necessary to your faith? but i will do just as my father would have done if you had asked him. only when i do it, it is a sign and a wonder that you may believe; and i wish you could believe without it. but believe then for the very work's sake, if you cannot believe for the word and the truth's sake. go thy way, thy son liveth." i would not be understood to say that the lord _blamed_ him, or others in him, for needing signs and wonders: it was rather, i think, that the lord spoke out of the fulness of his knowledge to awake in them some infant sense of what constituted all his life--the presence of god; just as the fingers of the light go searching in the dark mould for the sleeping seeds, to touch and awake them. the order of creation, the goings on of life, were ceaselessly flowing from the very heart of the father: why should they seek signs and wonders differing from common things only in being uncommon? in essence there was no difference. uncommonness is not excellence, even as commonness is not inferiority. the sign, the wonder is, in fact, the lower thing, granted only because of men's hardness of heart and slowness to believe--in itself of inferior nature to god's chosen way. yet, if signs and wonders could help them, have them they should, for neither were they at variance with the holy laws of life and faithfulness: they were but less usual utterances of the same. "go thy way: thy son liveth." the man, noble-man certainly in this, obeyed, and found his obedience justify his faith. but his son would have to work out his belief upon grounds differing from those his father had. in himself he could but recognize the resumption of the _natural_ sway of life. he would not necessarily know that it was god working in him. for the cause of his cure, he would only hear the story of it from his father--good evidence--but he himself had not seen the face of the holy one as his father had. in one sense or another, he must seek and find him. every generation must do its own seeking and its own finding. the fault of the fathers often is that they expect their finding to stand in place of their children's seeking--expect the children to receive that which has satisfied the need of their fathers upon their testimony; whereas rightly, their testimony is not ground for their children's belief, only for their children's search. that search is faith in the bud. no man can be sure till he has found for himself. all that is required of the faithful nature is a willingness to seek. he cannot even know the true nature of the thing he wants until he has found it; he has but a dim notion of it, a faint star to guide him eastward to the sunrise. hopefully, the belief of the father has the heart in it which will satisfy the need of the child; but the doubt of this in the child, is the father's first ground for hoping that the child with his new needs will find for himself the same well of life--to draw from it with a new bucket, it may be, because the old will hold water no longer: its staves may be good, but its hoops are worn asunder; or, rather, it will be but a new rope it needs, which he has to twist from the hemp growing in his own garden. the son who was healed might have many questions to ask which the father could not answer, had never thought of. he had heard of the miracle of cana; he had heard of many things done since: he believed that the man could cure his son, and he had cured him. "yes," the son might say, "but i must know more of him; for, if what i hear now be true, i must cast all at his feet. he cannot be a healer only; he must be the very lord of life--it may be of the universe." his simple human presence had in it something against the supposition--contained in it what must have _appeared_ reason for doubting this conclusion from his deeds, especially to one who had not seen his divine countenance. but to one at length enlightened of the great spirit, his humanity would contain the highest ground for believing in his divinity, for what it meant would come out ever and ever loftier and grander. the lord who had made the universe--how _should_ he show it but as the healer did? he could not make the universe over again in the eyes of every man. if he did, the heart of the man could not hold the sight. he must reveal himself as the curing god--the god who set things which had gone wrong, right again: _that could_ be done in the eyes of each individual man. this man may be he--the messiah--immanuel, god with-us. we can imagine such the further thoughts of the son--possibly of the father first--only he had been so full of the answer to his prayer, of the cure of his son, that he could not all at once follow things towards their grand conclusions. in this case, as in the two which follow, the lord heals from a distance. i have not much to remark upon this. there were reasons for it; one perhaps the necessity of an immediate answer to the prayer; another probably lay in its fitness to the faith of the supplicants. for to heal thus, although less of a sign or a wonder to the unbelieving, had in it an element of finer power upon the faith of such as came not for the sign or the wonder, but for the cure of the beloved; for he who loves can believe what he who loves not cannot believe; and he who loves most can believe most. in this respect, these cures were like the healing granted to prayer in all ages--not that god is afar off, for he is closer to every man than his own conscious being is to his unconscious being--but that we receive the aid from the unseen. though there be no distance with god, it looks like it to men; and when jesus cured thus, he cured with the same appearances which attended god's ordinary healing. the next case i take up is similar. it belongs to another of my classes, but as a case of possession there is little distinctive about it, while as the record of the devotion of a mother to her daughter--a devotion quickening in her faith so rare and lovely as to delight the very heart of jesus with its humble intensity--it is one of the most beautiful of all the stories of healing. the woman was a greek, and had not had the training of the jew for a belief in the messiah. her misconceptions concerning the healer of whom she had heard must have been full of fancies derived from the legends of her race. but she had yet been trained to believe, for her mighty love of her own child was the best power for the development of the child-like in herself. no woman can understand the possible depths of her own affection for her daughter. i say _daughter_, not _child_, because although love is the same everywhere, it is nowhere the same. no two loves of individuals in the same correlation are the same. much more the love of a woman for her daughter differs from the love of a father for his son--differs as the woman differs from the man. there is in it a peculiar tenderness from the sense of the same womanly consciousness in both of undefendedness and self-accountable modesty--a modesty, in this case, how terribly tortured in the mother by the wild behaviour of the daughter under the impulses of the unclean spirit! surely if ever there was a misery to drive a woman to the healer in an agony of rightful claim and prostrate entreaty, it was the misery of a mother whose daughter was thus possessed. the divine nature of her motherhood, of her womanhood, drew her back to its source to find help for one who shared in the same, but in whom its waters were sorely troubled and grievously defiled. she came crying to him. about him stood his disciples, proud of being jews. for their sakes this chosen gentile must be pained a little further, must bear with her saviour her part of suffering for the redemption even of his chosen apostles. they counted themselves the children, and such as she the dogs. he must show them the divine nature dwelling in her. for the sake of this revelation he must try her sorely, but not for long. "have mercy on me," she cried, "o lord, thou son of david; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil." but not a word of reply came from the lips of the healer. his disciples must speak first. they must supplicate for their gentile sister. he would arouse in them the disapproval of their own exclusiveness, by putting it on for a moment that they might see it apart from themselves. their hearts were moved for the woman. "send her away," they said, meaning, "give her what she wants;" but to move the heart of love to grant the prayer, they--poor intercessors--added a selfish reason to justify the deed of goodness, either that they would avoid being supposed to acknowledge her claim on a level with that of a jewess, and would make of it what both puritans and priests would call "an uncovenanted mercy," or that they actually thought it would help to overcome the scruples of the master. possibly it was both. "she crieth after us," they said--meaning, "she is troublesome." they would have him give as the ungenerous and the unjust give to the importunate. but no healing could be granted on such a ground--not even to the prayer of an apostle. the woman herself must give a better. "i am not sent," he said, "but unto the lost sheep of the house of israel." they understood the words falsely. we know that he did come for the gentiles, and he was training them to see what they were so slow to understand, that he had other sheep which were not of this fold. he had need to begin with them thus early. most of the troubles of his latest, perhaps greatest apostle, came from the indignation of jewish christians that he preached the good news to the gentiles as if it had been originally meant for them. they would have had them enter into its privileges by the gates of judaism. what they did at length understand by these words is expressed in the additional word of our lord given by st mark: "let the children first be filled." but even this they could not understand until afterwards. they could not see that it was for the sake of the gentiles as much as the jews that jesus came to the jews first. for whatever glorious exceptions there were amongst the gentiles, surpassing even similar amongst the jews; and whatever the wide-spread refusal of the jewish nation, he _could_ not have been received amongst the gentiles as amongst the jews. in judæa alone could the leaven work; there alone could the mustard-seed take fitting root. once rooted and up, it would become a great tree, and the birds of the world would nestle in its branches. it was not that god loved the jews more than the gentiles that he chose them first, but that he must begin somewhere: _why,_ god himself knows, and perhaps has given us glimmerings. upheld by her god-given love, not yet would the woman turn away. even such hard words as these could not repulse her. she came now and fell at his feet. it is as the master would have it: she presses only the nearer, she insists only the more; for the devil has a hold of her daughter. "lord, help me," is her cry; for the trouble of her daughter is her own. the "help _me_" is far more profound and pathetic than the most vivid blazon of the daughter's sufferings. but he answered and said,-- "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." terrible words! more dreadful far than any he ever spoke besides! surely now she will depart in despair! but the lord did not mean in them to speak _his_ mind concerning the relation of jew and gentile; for not only do the future of his church and the teaching of his spirit contradict it: but if he did mean what he said, then he acted as was unmeet, for he did cast a child's bread to a dog. no. he spoke as a jew felt, that the elect jews about him might begin to understand that in him is neither jew nor gentile, but all are brethren. and he has gained his point. the spirit in the woman has been divinely goaded into utterance, and out come the glorious words of her love and faith, casting aside even insult itself as if it had never been--all for the sake of a daughter. now, indeed, it is as he would have it. "yes, lord; yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." or, as st matthew gives it: "truth, lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." a retort quite greek in its readiness, its symmetry, and its point! but it was not the intellectual merit of the answer that pleased the master. cleverness is cheap. it is the faith he praises, [footnote : far more precious than any show of the intellect, even in regard of the intellect itself. the quickness of her answer was the scintillation of her intellect under the glow of her affection. love is the quickening nurse of the whole nature. faith in god will do more for the intellect at length than all the training of the schools. it will make the best that can be made of the whole man.] which was precious as rare--unspeakably precious even when it shall be the commonest thing in the universe, but precious now as the first fruits of a world redeemed--precious now as coming from the lips of a gentile--more precious as coming from the lips of a human mother pleading for her daughter. "o woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt." or, as st mark gives it, for we cannot afford to lose a varying word, "for this saying, go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter." the loving mother has conquered the tormenting devil. she has called in the mighty aid of the original love. through the channel of her love it flows, new-creating, "and her daughter was made whole from that very hour." where, o disciples, are your children and your dogs now? is not the wall of partition henceforth destroyed? no; you too have to be made whole of a worse devil, that of personal and national pride, before you understand. but the day of the lord is coming for you, notwithstanding ye are so incapable of knowing the signs and signals of its approach that, although its banners are spread across the flaming sky, it must come upon you as a thief in the night. for the woman, we may well leave her to the embraces of her daughter. they are enough for her now. but endless more will follow, for god is exhaustless in giving where the human receiving holds out. god be praised that there are such embraces in the world! that there are mothers who are the salvation of their children! we now complete a little family group, as it were, with the story of another foreigner, a roman officer, who besought the lord for his servant. this captain was at capernaum at the time, where i presume he had heard of the cure which jesus had granted to the nobleman for his son. it seems almost clear from the quality of his faith, however, that he must have heard much besides of jesus--enough to give him matter of pondering for some time, for i do not think such humble confidence as his could be, like jonah's gourd, the growth of a night. he was evidently a man of noble and large nature. instead of lording it over the subject jews of capernaum, he had built them a synagogue; and his behaviour to our lord is marked by that respect which, shown to any human being, but especially to a person of lower social condition, is one of the surest marks of a finely wrought moral temperament. such a nature may be beautifully developed, by a military training, in which obedience and command go together; and the excellence of faith and its instant response in action, would be more readily understood by the thoughtful officer of a well-disciplined army than by any one to whom organization was unknown. hence arose the parallel the centurion draws between his own and the master's position, which so pleased the lord by its direct simplicity. but humble as the man was, i doubt if anything less than some spiritual perception of the nobility of the character of jesus, some perception of that which was altogether beyond even the power of healing, could have generated such perfect reverence, such childlike confidence as his. it is no wonder the lord was pleased with it, for that kind of thing must be just what his father loves. according to st luke, the roman captain considered himself so unworthy of notice from the carpenter's son--they of capernaum, which was "his own city," knew his reputed parentage well enough--that he got the elders of the jews to go and beg for him that he would come and heal his servant. they bore testimony to his worth, specifying that which would always be first in the eyes of such as they, that he loved their nation, and had built them a synagogue. little they thought how the lord was about to honour him above all their nation and all its synagogues. he went with them at once. but before they reached the house, the centurion had a fresh inroad of that divine disease, humility, [footnote : in him it was almost morbid, one might be tempted to say, were it not that it was own sister to such mighty faith.] and had sent other friends to say, "lord, trouble not thyself, for i am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. wherefore, neither thought i myself worthy to come unto thee; but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. for i also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and i say unto one, go, and he goeth; and to another, come, and he cometh; and to my servant, do this, and he doeth it." this man was a philosopher: he ascended from that to which he was accustomed to that to which he was not accustomed. nor did his divine logic fail him. he begins with acknowledging his own subjection, and states his own authority; then leaves it to our lord to understand that he recognizes in him an authority beyond all, expecting the powers of nature to obey their master, just as his soldiers or his servants obey him. how grandly he must have believed in him! but beyond suspicion of flattery, he avoids the face of the man whom in heart he worships. how unlike those who press into the presence of a phantom-greatness! "a poor creature like me go and talk to him!" the roman captain would exclaim. "no, i will worship from afar off." and it is to be well heeded that the lord went no further--turned at once. with the tax-gatherer zacchaeus he would go home, if but to deliver him from the hopelessness of his self-contempt; but what occasion was there here? it was all right here. the centurion was one who needed but to go on. in heart and soul he was nearer the lord now than any of the disciples who followed him. surely some one among the elders of the jews, his friends, would carry him the report of what the master said. it would not hurt him. the praise of the truly great will do no harm, save it fall where it ought not, on the heart of the little. the praise of god never falls wrong, therefore never does any one harm. the lord even implies we ought to seek it. his praise would but glorify the humility and the faith of this roman by making both of them deeper and nobler still. there is something very grand in the lord's turning away from the house of the man who had greater faith than any he had found in israel; for such were the words he spoke to those who followed him, of whom in all likelihood the messenger elders were nearest. having turned to say them, he turned not again but went his way. st luke, whose narrative is in other respects much fuller than st matthew's (who says that the centurion himself came to jesus, and makes no mention of the elders), does not represent the master as uttering a single word of cure, but implies that he just went away marvelling at him; while "they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick." if any one ask how jesus could marvel, i answer, jesus could do more things than we can well understand. the fact that he marvelled at the great faith, shows that he is not surprised at the little, and therefore is able to make all needful and just, yea, and tender allowance. here i cannot do better for my readers than give them four lines, dear to me, but probably unknown to most of them, written, i must tell them, for the sake of their loving catholicity, by an english jesuit of the seventeenth century. they touch the very heart of the relation between jesus and the centurion:-- thy god was making haste into thy roof; thy humble faith and fear keeps him aloof: he'll be thy guest; because he may not be, he'll come--into thy house? no, into thee. as i said, we thus complete a kind of family group, for surely the true servant is one of the family: we have the prayer of a father for a son, of a mother for a daughter, of a master for a servant. alas! the dearness of this latter bond is not now known as once. there never was a rooted institution in parting with which something good was not lost for a time, however necessary its destruction might be for the welfare of the race. there are fewer free servants that love their masters and mistresses now, i fear, than there were roman bondsmen and bondswomen who loved theirs. and, on the other hand, very few masters and mistresses regard the bond between them and their servants with half the respect and tenderness with which many among the romans regarded it. slavery is a bad thing and of the devil, yet mutual jealousy and contempt are worse. but the time will yet come when a servant will serve for love as more than wages; and when the master of such a servant will honour him even to the making him sit down to meat, and coming forth and serving him. the next is the case of the palsied man, so graphically given both by st mark and st luke, and with less of circumstance by st matthew. this miracle also was done in capernaum, called his own city. pharisees and doctors of the law from every town in the country, hearing of his arrival, had gathered to him, and were sitting listening to his teaching. there was no possibility of getting near him, and the sick man's friends had carried him up to the roof, taken off the tiles, and let him down into the presence. it should not be their fault if the poor fellow was not cured. "jesus seeing their faith--when jesus saw their faith--and when he saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, son, be of good cheer--son--man, thy sins are forgiven thee." the forgiveness of the man's sins is by all of the narrators connected with the faith of his friends. this is very remarkable. the only other instance in which similar words are recorded, is that of the woman who came to him in simon's house, concerning whom he showed first, that her love was a sign that her sins were already forgiven. what greater honour could he honour their faith withal than grant in their name, unasked, the one mighty boon? they had brought the man to him; to them he forgave his sins. he looked into his heart, and probably saw, as in the case of the man whom he cured by the pool of bethesda, telling him to go and sin no more, that his own sins had brought upon him this suffering, a supposition which aids considerably to the understanding of the consequent conversation; saw, at all events, that the assurance of forgiveness was what he most needed, whether because his conscience was oppressed with a sense of guilt, or that he must be brought to think more of the sin than of the suffering; for it involved an awful rebuke to the man, if he required it still--that the lord should, when he came for healing, present him with forgiveness. nor did he follow it at once with the cure of his body, but delayed that for a little, probably for the man's sake, as probably for the sake of those present, whom he had been teaching for some time, and in whose hearts he would now fix the lesson concerning the divine forgiveness which he had preached to them in bestowing it upon the sick man. for his words meant nothing, except they meant that god forgave the man. the scribes were right when they said that none could forgive sins but god--that is, in the full sense in which forgiveness is still needed by every human being, should all his fellows whom he has injured have forgiven him already. they said in their hearts, "he is a blasphemer." this was what he had expected. "why do you think evil in your hearts?" he said, that is, _evil of me--that i am a blasphemer_. he would now show them that he was no blasphemer; that he had the power to forgive, that it was the will of god that he should preach the remission of sins. how could he show it them? in one way only: by dismissing the consequence, the punishment of those sins, sealing thus in the individual case the general truth. he who could say to a man, by the eternal law suffering the consequences of sin: "be whole, well, strong; suffer no more," must have the right to pronounce his forgiveness; else there was another than god who had to cure with a word the man whom his maker had afflicted. if there were such another, the kingdom of god must be trembling to its fall, for a stronger had invaded and reversed its decrees. power does not give the right to pardon, but its possession may prove the right. "whether is easier--to say, thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, rise up and walk?" if only god can do either, he who can do the one must be able to do the other. "that ye may know that the son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins--arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house." up rose the man, took up that whereon he had lain, and went away, knowing in himself that his sins _were_ forgiven him, for he was able to glorify god. it seems to me against our lord's usual custom with the scribes and pharisees to grant them such proof as this. certainly, to judge by those recorded, the whole miracle was in aspect and order somewhat unusual. but i think the men here assembled were either better than the most of their class, or in a better mood than common, for st luke says of them that the power of the lord was present to heal them. to such therefore proof might be accorded which was denied to others. that he might heal these learned doctors around him, he forgave the sins first and then cured the palsy of the man before him. for their sakes he performed the miracle thus. then, _like priests, like people_; for where their leaders were listening, the people broke open the roof to get the helpless into his presence. "they marvelled and glorified god which had given such power unto men"--"saying, we never saw it on this fashion."--"they were filled with fear, saying, we have seen strange things to-day." and yet capernaum had to be brought down to hell, and no man can tell the place where it stood. two more cases remain, both related by st mark alone. they brought him a man partially deaf and dumb. he led him aside from the people: he would be alone with him, that he might come the better into relation with that individuality which, until molten from within, is so hard to touch. possibly had the man come of himself, this might have been less necessary; but i repeat there must have been in every case reason for the individual treatment in the character and condition of the patient. these were patent only to the healer. in this case the closeness of the personal contact, as in those cases of the blind, is likewise remarkable. "he put his fingers into his ears, he spit and touched his tongue." always in present disease, bodily contact--in defects of the senses, sometimes of a closer kind. he would generate assured faith in himself as the healer. but there is another remarkable particular here, which, as far as i can remember, would be alone in its kind but for a fuller development of it at the raising of lazarus. "and looking up to heaven, he sighed." what did it mean? what first of all _was_ it? that look, was it not a look up to his own father? that sigh, was it not the unarticulated prayer to the father of the man who stood beside him? but did _he_ need to look up as if god was in the sky, seeing that god was in _him_, in his very deepest, inmost being, in fulness of presence, and receiving conscious response, such as he could not find anywhere else--not from the whole gathered universe? why should he send a sigh, like a david's dove, to carry the thought of his heart to his father? true, if all the words of human language had been blended into one glorious majesty of speech, and the lord had sought therein to utter the love he bore his father, his voice must needs have sunk into the last inarticulate resource--the poor sigh, in which evermore speech dies helplessly triumphant--appealing to the hearer to supply the lack, saying _i cannot, but thou knowest_--confessing defeat, but claiming victory. but the lord could talk to his father evermore in the forms of which words are but the shadows, nay, infinitely more, without forms at all, in the thoughts which are the souls of the forms. why then needs he look up and sigh?--that the man, whose faith was in the merest nascent condition, might believe that whatever cure came to him from the hand of the healer, came from the hand of god. jesus did not care to be believed in as the doer of the deed, save the deed itself were recognized as given him of the father. if they saw him only, and not the father through him, there was little gained indeed. the upward look and the sigh were surely the outward expression of the infrangible link which bound both the lord and the man to the father of all. he would lift the man's heart up to the source of every gift. no cure would be worthy gift without that: it might be an injury. the last case is that of the blind man of bethsaida, whom likewise he led apart, out of the town, and whose dull organs he likewise touched with his spittle. then comes a difference. the deaf man was at once cured; when he had laid his hands on the blind man, his vision was but half-restored. "he asked him if he saw ought? and he looked up and said, i see the men: for like trees [footnote : could it be translated, "_as well as_ (that is besides) trees, i see walkers about"?] i see them walking about." he could tell they were men and not trees, only by their motion. the master laid his hands once more upon his eyes, and when he looked up again, he saw every man clearly. in thus graduating the process, our lord, i think, drew forth, encouraged, enticed into strength the feeble faith of the man. he brooded over him with his holy presence of love. he gave the faith time to grow. he cared more for his faith than his sight. he let him, as it were, watch him, feel him doing it, that he might know and believe. there is in this a peculiar resemblance to the ordinary modes god takes in healing men. these last miracles are especially full of symbolism and analogy. but in considering any of the miracles, i do not care to dwell upon this aspect of them, for in this they are only like all the rest of the doings of god. nature is brimful of symbolic and analogical parallels to the goings and comings, the growth and the changes of the highest nature in man. it could not be otherwise. for not only did they issue from the same thought, but the one is made for the other. nature as an outer garment for man, or a living house, rather, for man to live in. so likewise must all the works of him who did the works of the father bear the same mark of the original of all. the one practical lesson contained in this group is nearer the human fact and the human need than any symbolic meaning, grand as it must be, which they may likewise contain; nearer also to the constitution of things, inasmuch as what a man must _do_ is more to the man and to his maker than what he can only _think_; inasmuch, also, as the commonest things are the best, and any man can do right, although he may be unable to tell the difference between a symbol and a sign:--it is that if ever there was a man such as we read about here, then he who prays for his friends shall be heard of god. i do not say he shall have whatever he asks for. god forbid. but he shall be heard. and the man who does not see the good of that, knows nothing of the good of prayer; can, i fear, as yet, only pray for himself, when most he fancies he is praying for his friend. often, indeed, when men suppose they are concerned for the well-beloved, they are only concerned about what they shall do without them. let them pray for themselves instead, for that will be the truer prayer. i repeat, all prayer is assuredly heard:--what evil matter is it that it should be answered only in the right time and right way? the prayer argues a need--that need will be supplied. one day is with the lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. all who have prayed shall one day justify god and say--thy answer is beyond my prayer, as thy thoughts and thy ways are beyond my thoughts and my ways. vii. the casting out of devils. before attempting to say the little i can concerning this group of miracles, i would protect myself against possible misapprehension. the question concerning the nature of what is called _possession_ has nothing whatever to do with that concerning the existence or nonexistence of a personal and conscious power of evil, the one great adversary of the kingdom of heaven, commonly called satan, or the devil. i say they are two distinct questions, and have so little in common that the one may be argued without even an allusion to the other. many think that in the cases recorded we have but the symptoms of well-known diseases, which, from their exceptionally painful character, involving loss of reason, involuntary or convulsive motions, and other abnormal phenomena, the imaginative and unscientific easterns attributed, as the easiest mode of accounting for them, to a foreign power taking possession of the body and mind of the man. they say there is no occasion whatever to resort to an explanation involving an agency of which we know nothing from any experience of our own; that, as our lord did not come to rectify men's psychological or physiological theories, he adopted the mode of speech common amongst them, but cast out the evil spirits simply by healing the diseases attributed to their influences. there seems to me nothing unchristian in this interpretation. all diseases that trouble humanity may well be regarded as inroads of the evil powers upon the palaces and temples of god, where only the holy spirit has a right to dwell; and to cast out such, is a marvel altogether as great as to expel the intruding forces to which the jews attributed some of them. certainly also our lord must have used multitudes of human expressions which did not more than adumbrate his own knowledge. and yet i cannot admit that the solution meets all the appearances of the difficulty. i say _appearances_, because i could not be dogmatic here if i would. i know too little, understand too little, to dare give such an opinion as possesses even the authority of personal conviction. all i have to say on the subject must therefore come to little. perhaps if the marvellous, as such, were to me more difficult of belief, anything i might have to say on the side of it would have greater weight. but to me the marvellous is not therefore incredible, always provided that in itself the marvellous thing appears worthy. i have no difficulty in receiving the old jewish belief concerning possession; and i think it better explains the phenomena recorded than the growing modern opinion; while the action of matter upon mind may well be regarded as involving greater mystery than the action of one spiritual nature upon another. that a man should rave in madness because some little cell or two in the grey matter of his brain is out of order, is surely no more within the compass of man's understanding than the supposition that an evil spirit, getting close to the fountain of a man's physical life, should disturb all the goings on of that life, even to the production of the most appalling moral phenomena. in either case it is not the man himself who originates the resulting actions, but an external power operating on the man. "but we do not even know that there are such spirits, and we do know that a diseased brain is sufficient to account for the worst of the phenomena recorded." i will not insist on the fact that we do _not_ know that the diseased brain is enough to account for the phenomena, that we only know it as in many cases a concomitant of such phenomena; i will grant so much, and yet insist that, as the explanation does not fit the statements of the record, and as we know so little of what is, any hint of unknown possibilities falling from unknown regions, should, even as a stranger, receive the welcome of contemplation and conjecture, so long as in itself it involves no moral contradiction. the man who will not speculate at all, can make no progress. the thinking about the possible is as genuine, as lawful, and perhaps as edifying an exercise of the mind as the severest induction. better lies still beyond. experiment itself must follow in the track of sober conjecture; for if we know already, where is the good of experiment? there seems to me nothing unreasonable in the supposition of the existence of spirits who, having once had bodies such as ours, and having abused the privileges of embodiment, are condemned for a season to roam about bodiless, ever mourning the loss of their capacity for the only pleasures they care for, and craving after them in their imaginations. such, either in selfish hate of those who have what they have lost, or from eagerness to come as near the possession of a corporeal form as they may, might well seek to _enter into_ a man. the supposition at least is perfectly consistent with the facts recorded. possibly also it may be consistent with the phenomena of some of the forms of the madness of our own day, although all its forms are alike regarded as resulting from physical causes alone. the first act of dispossession recorded is that told by st mark and st luke, as taking place at capernaum, amongst his earliest miracles, and preceding the cure of simon's mother-in-law. he was in the synagogue on the sabbath day, teaching the congregation, when a man present, who had an unclean spirit, cried out. if i accept the narrative, i find this cry far more intelligible on the old than on the new theory. the speaker, no doubt using the organs of the man, brain and all, for utterance, recognizes a presence--to him the cause of terror--which he addresses as the holy one of god. this holy one he would propitiate by entreaty and the flattering acknowledgment of his divine mission, with the hope of being left unmolested in the usurpation and cruelty by which he ministered to his own shadowy self-indulgences. could anything be more consistently diabolic? what other word could jesus address to such than, "hold thy peace, and come out of him"? a being in such a condition could not be permitted to hold converse with the saviour; for he recognized no salvation but what lay in the continuance of his own pleasures at the expense of another. the form of the rebuke plainly assumes that it was not the man but some one in the man who had spoken; and the narrative goes on to say that when the devil had thrown him down and torn him and cried with a loud voice--his rage and disappointment, i presume, finding its last futile utterance in the torture of his captive--he came out of him and left him unhurt. thereupon the people questioned amongst themselves saying, "what thing is this? it is a teaching new, and with authority: he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him;" [footnote : st mark, i. . authorized version revised by dean alford.] thus connecting at once his power over the unclean spirits with the doctrine he taught, just as our lord in an after-instance associates power over demons with spiritual condition. it was the truth in him that made him strong against the powers of untruth. many such cures were performed, but the individual instances recorded are few. the next is that of the man--dumb, according to st luke, both blind and dumb, according to st matthew--who spake and saw as soon as the devil was cast out of him. with unerring instinct the people concluded that he who did such deeds must be the son of david; the devils themselves, according to st mark, were wont to acknowledge him the son of god; the scribes and pharisees, the would-be guides of the people, alone refused the witness, and in the very imbecility of unbelief, eager after any theory that might seem to cover the facts without acknowledging a divine mission in one who would not admit _their_ authority, attributed to beelzebub himself the deliverance of distressed mortals from the powers of evil. regarding the kingdom of god as a thing of externals, they were fortified against recognizing in jesus himself or in his doctrine any sign that he was the enemy of satan, and might even persuade themselves that such a cure was only one of satan's tricks for the advancement of his kingdom with the many by a partial emancipation of the individual. but our lord attributes this false conclusion to its true cause--to no incapacity or mistake of judgement; to no over-refining about the possible chicaneries of beelzebub; but to a preference for any evil which would support them in their authority with the people--in itself an evil. careless altogether about truth itself, they would not give a moment's quarter to any individual utterance of it which tended to destroy their honourable position in the nation. each man to himself was his own god. the spirit of god they shut out. to them forgiveness was not offered. they must pay the uttermost farthing--whatever that may mean--and frightful as the doom must be. that he spoke thus against them was but a further carrying out of his mission, a further inroad upon the kingdom of that beelzebub. and yet they were the accredited authorities in the church of that day; and he who does not realize this, does not understand the battle our lord had to fight for the emancipation of the people. it was for the sake of the people that he called the pharisees _hypocrites_, and not for their own sakes, for how should he argue with men who taught religion for their own aggrandizement? it is to be noted that our lord recognizes the power of others besides himself to cast out devils. "by whom do your children cast them out?" _did you ever say of them it was by beelzebub? why say it of me_? what he claims he freely allows. the saviour had no tinge of that jealousy of rival teaching--as if truth could be two, and could avoid being one--which makes so many of his followers grasp at any waif of false argument. he knew that all good is of god, and not of the devil. all were _with_ him who destroyed the power of the devil. they who were cured, and they in whom self-worship was not blinding the judgment, had no doubt that he was fighting satan on his usurped ground. torture was what might be expected of satan; healing what might be expected of god. the reality of the healing, the loss of the man, morally as well as physically, to the kingdom of evil, was witnessed in all the signs that followed. our lord rests his argument on the fact that satan had lost these men. we hear next, from st luke, of certain women who followed him, having been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, amongst whom is mentioned "mary, called magdalene, out of whom went seven devils." no wonder a woman thus delivered should devote her restored self to the service of him who had recreated her. we hear nothing of the circumstances of the cure, only the result in her constant ministration. hers is a curious instance of the worthlessness of what some think it a mark of high-mindedness to regard alone--the opinion, namely, of posterity. without a fragment of evidence, this woman has been all but universally regarded as impure. but what a trifle to her! down in this squabbling nursery of the race, the name of mary magdalene may be degraded even to a subject for pictorial sentimentalities; but the woman herself is with that jesus who set her free. to the end of time they may call her what they please: to her it is worth but a smile of holy amusement. and just as worthy is the applause of posterity associated with a name. to god alone we live or die. let us fall, as, thank him, we must, into his hands. let him judge us. posterity may be wiser than we; but posterity is not our judge. we come now to a narrative containing more of the marvellous than all the rest. the miracle was wrought on the south-eastern side of the lake--st matthew says, upon two demoniacs; st mark and st luke make mention only of one. the accounts given by the latter evangelists are much more circumstantial than that by the former. it was a case of peculiarly frightful character. the man, possessed of many demons, was ferocious, and of marvellous strength, breaking chains and fetters, and untameable. it is impossible to analyse the phenomena, saying which were the actions of the man, and which those of the possessing demons. externally all were the man's, done by the man finally, some part, i presume, from his own poor withered will, far the greater from the urging of the demons. even in the case of a man driven by appetite or passion, it is impossible to say how much is to be attributed to the man himself, and how much to that lower nature in him which he ought to keep in subjection, but which, having been allowed to get the upper hand, has become a possessing demon. he met the lord worshipping, and, as in a former instance, praying for such clemency as devils can value. was it the devils, then, that urged the man into the presence of the lord? was it not rather the other spirit, the spirit of life, which not the presence of a legion of the wicked ones could drive from him? was it not the spirit of the father in him which brought him, ignorant, fearing, yet vaguely hoping perhaps, to the feet of the son? he knew not why he came; but he came--drawn or driven; he could not keep away. when he came, however, the words at least of his prayer were moulded by the devils--"i adjure thee by god that thou torment me not." think of the man, tortured by such awful presences, praying to the healer not to torment him! the prayer was compelled into this shape by the indwelling demons. they would have him pray for indulgence for them. but the lord heard the deeper prayer, that is, the need and misery of the man, the horror that made him cry and cut himself with stones--and commanded the unclean spirit to come out of him. thereupon, st mark says, "he besought him much that he would not send them out of the country." probably the country was one the condition of whose inhabitants afforded the demons unusual opportunities for their coveted pseudo-embodiment. st luke says, "they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep"--to such beings awful, chiefly because there they must be alone, afar from matter and all its forms. in such loneliness the good man would be filled with the eternal presence of the living god; but they would be aware only of their greedy, hungry selves--desires without objects. no. here were swine. "send us into the swine, that we may enter into them." deprived of the abode they preferred, debarred from men, swine would serve their turn. but even the swine--animals created to look unclean, for a type to humanity of the very form and fashion of its greed--could not endure their presence. the man had cut himself with stones in his misery; the swine in theirs rushed into the waters of the lake and were drowned. the evil spirits, i presume, having no further leave, had to go to their deep after all. the destruction of the swine must not be regarded as miraculous. but there must have been a special reason in the character and condition of the people of gadara for his allowing this destruction of their property. i suppose that although it worked vexation and dismay at first, it prepared the way for some after-reception of the gospel. now, seeing him who had been a raving maniac, sitting at the feet of jesus, clothed and in his right mind, and hearing what had come to the swine, they were filled with fear, and prayed the healer to depart from them. but who can imagine the delight of the man when that wild troop of maddening and defiling demons, which had possessed him with all uncleanness, vanished! scarce had he time to know that he was naked, before the hands of loving human beings, in whom the good spirit ruled, were taking off their own garments, and putting them upon him. he was a man once more, and amongst men with human faces, human hearts, human ways. he was with his own; and that supreme form and face of the man who had set him free was binding them all into one holy family. now he could pray of himself the true prayer of a soul which knew what it wanted, and could say what it meant. he sat down like a child at the feet of the man who had cured him; and when, yielding at once to the desire of those who would be rid of his presence, jesus went down to the boat, he followed, praying that he might be with him; for what could he desire but to be near that power which had restored him his divine self, and the consciousness thereof--his own true existence, that of which god was thinking when he made him? but he would be still nearer the lord in doing his work than in following him about. it is remarkable that while more than once our lord charged the healed to be silent, he leaves this man as his apostle--his witness with those who had banished him from their coasts. something may be attributed to the different natures of the individuals; some in preaching him would also preach themselves, and so hurt both. but this man was not of such. to be with the lord was all his prayer. therefore he was fit to be without him, and to aid his work apart. but i think it more likely that the reason lay in the condition of the people. judæa was in a state of excitement about him--that excitement had unhealthy elements, and must not be fanned. in some places the lord would not speak at all. through some he would pass unknown. but here all was different. he had destroyed their swine; they had prayed him to depart; if he took from them this one sign of his real presence, that is, of the love which heals, not the power which destroys, it would be to abandon them. but it is very noteworthy that he sent the man to his own house, to his own friends. they must be the most open to such a message as his, and from such lips--the lips of their own flesh and blood. he had been raving in tombs and deserts, tormented with a legion of devils; now he was one of themselves again, with love in his eyes, adoration in the very tones of his voice, and help in his hands--reason once more supreme on the throne of his humanity. he obeyed, and published in gadara, and the rest of the cities of decapolis, the great things, as jesus himself called them, which god had done for him. for it was god who had done them. he was doing the works of his father. one more instance remains, having likewise peculiar points of difficulty, and therefore of interest. when jesus was on the mount of transfiguration, a dumb, epileptic, and lunatic boy was brought by his father to those disciples who were awaiting his return. but they could do nothing. to their disappointment, and probably to their chagrin, they found themselves powerless over the evil spirit. when jesus appeared, the father begged of him the aid which his disciples could not give: "master, i beseech thee, look upon my son, for he is mine only child." whoever has held in his arms his child in delirium, calling to his father for aid as if he were distant far, and beating the air in wild and aimless defence, will be able to enter a little into the trouble of this man's soul. to have the child, and yet see him tormented in some region inaccessible; to hold him to the heart and yet be unable to reach the thick-coming fancies which distract him; to find himself with a great abyss between him and his child, across which the cry of the child comes, but back across which no answering voice can reach the consciousness of the sufferer--is terror and misery indeed. but imagine in the case before us the intervals as well--the stupidity, the vacant gaze, the hanging lip, the pale flaccid countenance and bloodshot eyes, idiocy alternated with madness--no voice of human speech, only the animal babble of the uneducated dumb--the misery of his falling down anywhere, now in the fire, now in the water, and the divine shines out as nowhere else--for the father loves his only child even to agony. what was there in such a child to love? _everything_: the human was there, else whence the torture of that which was not human? whence the pathos of those eyes, hardly up to the dog's in intelligence, yet omnipotent over the father's heart? god was there. the misery was that the devil was there too. thence came the crying and tears. "rescue the divine; send the devil to the deep," was the unformed prayer in the father's soul. before replying to his prayer, jesus uttered words that could not have been addressed to the father, inasmuch as he was neither faithless nor perverse. which then of those present did he address thus? to which of them did he say, "how long shall i be with you? how long shall i suffer you?" i have thought it was the bystanders: but why they? they had not surely reached the point of such rebuke. i have thought it was the disciples, because perhaps it was their pride that rendered them unable to cast out the demon, seeing they tried it without faith enough in god. but the form of address does not seem to belong to them: the word generation could not well apply to those whom he had chosen out of that generation. i have thought, and gladly would i continue to think, if i could honestly, that the words were intended for the devils who tormented his countrymen and friends; and but for st mark's story, i might have held to it. he, however, gives us one point which neither st matthew nor st luke mention--that "when he came to his disciples he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them." he says the multitude were greatly amazed when they saw him--why, i do not know, except it be that he came just at the point where his presence was needful to give the one answer to the scribes pressing hard upon his disciples because they could not cast out this devil. these scribes, these men of accredited education, who, from their position as students of the law and the interpretations thereof, arrogated to themselves a mastery over the faith of the people, but were themselves so careless about the truth as to be utterly opaque to its illuminating power--these scribes, i say, i do think it was whom our lord addressed as "faithless and perverse generation." the immediately following request to the father of the boy, "bring him unto me," was the one answer to their arguments. a fresh paroxysm was the first result. but repressing all haste, the lord will care for the father as much as for the child. he will help his growing faith. "how long is it ago since thus hath come unto him?" "from a child. and oft-times it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him; but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us." [footnote : again the _us_--so full of pathos.] "_if thou canst_?" [footnote : the oldest manuscripts. (_dean alford_). "if thou canst have faith--all things," &c. ("new translation of the gospel of st mark." _rev. f.h. godwin_).] all things are possible to him that believeth." "lord, i believe; help thou mine unbelief." whether the words of jesus, "him that believeth," meant himself as believing in the father, and therefore gifted with all power, or the man as believing in him, and therefore capable of being the recipient of the effects of that power, i am not sure. i incline to the former. the result is the same, for the man resolves the question practically and personally: what was needful in him should be in him. "i believe; help thou mine unbelief." in the honesty of his heart, lest he should be saying more than was true--for how could he be certain that jesus would cure his son? or how could he measure and estimate his own faith?--he appeals to the lord of truth for all that he ought to be, and think, and believe. "help thou mine unbelief." it is the very triumph of faith. the unbelief itself cast like any other care upon him who careth for us, is the highest exercise of belief. it is the greatest effort lying in the power of the man. no man can help doubt. the true man alone, that is, the faithful man, can appeal to the truth to enable him to believe what is true, and refuse what is false. how this applies especially to our own time and the need of the living generations, is easy to see. of all prayers it is the one for us. possibly our lord might have held a little farther talk with him, but the people came crowding about. "he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, thou dumb and deaf spirit, i charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. and the spirit cried and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, he is dead. but jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose." "why could not we cast him out?" asked his disciples as soon as they were alone. "this kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting." what does this answer imply? the prayer and fasting must clearly be on the part of those who would heal. they cannot be required of one possessed with a demon. if he could fast and pray, the demon would be gone already. it implies that a great purity of soul is needful in him who would master the powers of evil. i take prayer and fasting to indicate a condition of mind elevated above the cares of the world and the pleasures of the senses, in close communion with the god of life; therefore by its very purity an awe and terror to the unclean spirits, a fit cloud whence the thunder of the word might issue against them. the expulsion would appear to be the result of moral, and hence natural, superiority--a command resting upon oneness with the ultimate will of the supreme, in like manner as an evil man is sometimes cowed in the presence of a good man. the disciples had not attained this lofty condition of faith. from this i lean to think that the words of our lord--"all things are possible to him that believeth"--apply to our lord himself. the disciples could not help the child: "if thou canst do anything," said the father. "all things are possible to him that believeth," says our lord. _he_ can help him. that it was the lack of faith in the disciples which rendered the thing impossible for them, st matthew informs us explicitly, for he gives the reply of our lord more fully than the rest: "because of your unbelief," he said, and followed with the assertion that faith could remove mountains. but the words--_"this kind"_--suggest that the case had its peculiarities. it would appear--although i am not certain of this interpretation--that some kinds of spirits required for their expulsion, or at least some cases of possession required for their cure, more than others of the presence of god in the healer. i do not care to dwell upon this farther than to say that there are points in the narrative which seem to indicate that it was an unusually bad case. the lord asked how long he had been ill, and was told, from childhood. the demon--to use the language of our ignorance--had had time and opportunity, in his undeveloped condition, to lay thorough hold upon him; and when he did yield to the superior command of the lord, he left him as dead--so close had been the possession, that for a time the natural powers could not operate when deprived of the presence of a force which had so long usurped, maltreated, and exhausted, while falsely sustaining them. the disciples, although they had already the power to cast out demons, could not cast this one out, and were surprised to find it so. there appears to me no absurdity, if we admit the demons at all, in admitting also that some had greater force than others, be it regarded as courage or obstinacy, or merely as grasp upon the captive mortal. in all these stories there is much of comfort both to the friends of those who are insane, and to those who are themselves aware of their own partial or occasional insanity. for such sorrow as that of charles and mary lamb, walking together towards the asylum, when the hour had come for her to repair thither, is there not some assuagement here? it may be answered--we have no ground to hope for such cure now. i think we have; but if our faith will not reach so far, we may at least, like athanasius, recognize the friendship of death, for death is the divine cure of many ills. but we all need like healing. no man who does not yet love the truth with his whole being, who does not love god with all his heart and soul and strength and mind, and his neighbour as himself, is in his sound mind, or can act as a rational being, save more or less approximately. this is as true as it would be of us if possessed by other spirits than our own. every word of unkindness, god help us! every unfair hard judgment, every trembling regard of the outward and fearless disregard of the inward life, is a siding with the spirit of evil against the spirit of good, with our lower and accidental selves, against our higher and essential--our true selves. these the spirit of good would set free from all possession but his own, for that is their original life. out of us, too, the evil spirits can go by that prayer alone in which a man draws nigh to the holy. nor can we have any power over the evil spirit in others except in proportion as by such prayer we cast the evil spirit out of ourselves. viii. the raising of the dead. i linger on the threshold. how shall i enter the temple of this wonder? through all ages men of all degrees and forms of religion have hoped at least for a continuance of life beyond its seeming extinction. without such a hope, how could they have endured the existence they had? true, there are in our day men who profess unbelief in that future, and yet lead an enjoyable life, nor even say to themselves, "let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die;" but say instead, with nobleness, "let us do what good we may, for there are men to come after us." of all things let him who would be a christian be fair to every man and every class of men. before, however, i could be satisfied that i understood the mental condition of such, i should require a deeper insight than i possess in respect of other men. these, however numerous they seem in our day, would appear to be exceptions to the race. no doubt there have always been those who from absorption in the present and its pleasures, have not cared about the future, have not troubled themselves with the thought of it. some of them would rather not think of it, because if there be such a future, they cannot be easy concerning their part in it; while others are simply occupied with the poor present--a present grand indeed if it be the part of an endless whole, but poor indeed if it stand alone. but here are thoughtful men, who say, "there is no more. let us make the best of this." nor is their notion of _best_ contemptible, although in the eyes of some of us, to whom the only worth of being lies in the hope of becoming that which, at the rate of present progress, must take ages to be realized, it is poor. i will venture one or two words on the matter. their ideal does not approach the ideal of christianity for _this_ life even. before i can tell whether their words are a true representation of themselves, in relation to this future, i must know both their conscious and unconscious being. no wonder i should be loath to judge them. no poet of high rank, as far as i know, ever disbelieved in the future. he might fear that there was none; but that very fear is faith. the greatest poet of the present day believes with ardour. that it is not proven to the intellect, i heartily admit. but if it were true, it were such as the intellect could not grasp, for the understanding must be the offspring of the life--in itself essential. how should the intellect understand its own origin and nature? it is too poor to grasp this question; for the continuity of existence depends on the nature of existence, not upon external relations. if after death we should be conscious that we yet live, we shall even then, i think, be no more able to prove a further continuance of life, than we can now prove our present being. it may be easier to believe--that will be all. but we constantly act upon grounds which we cannot prove, and if we cannot feel so sure of life beyond the grave as of common every-day things, at least the want of proof ought neither to destroy our hope concerning it, nor prevent the action demanded by its bare possibility. but last, i do say this, that those men, who, disbelieving in a future state, do yet live up to the conscience within them, however much lower the requirements of that conscience may be than those of a conscience which believes itself enlightened from "the lord, who is that spirit," shall enter the other life in an immeasurably more enviable relation thereto than those who say _lord, lord_, and do not the things he says to them. it may seem strange that our lord says so little about the life to come--as we call it--though in truth it is one life with the present--as the leaf and the blossom are one life. even in argument with the sadducees he supports his side upon words accepted by them, and upon the nature of god, but says nothing of the question from a human point of regard. he seems always to have taken it for granted, ever turning the minds of his scholars towards that which was deeper and lay at its root--the life itself--the oneness with god and his will, upon which the continuance of our conscious being follows of a necessity, and without which if the latter were possible, it would be for human beings an utter evil. when he speaks of the world beyond, it is as _his father's house_. he says there are many mansions there. he attempts in no way to explain. man's own imagination enlightened of the spirit of truth, and working with his experience and affections, was a far safer guide than his intellect with the best schooling which even our lord could have given it. the memory of the poorest home of a fisherman on the shore of the galilean lake, where he as a child had spent his years of divine carelessness in his father's house, would, at the words of our lord _my father's house_, convey to peter or james or john more truth concerning the many mansions than a revelation to their intellect, had it been possible, as clear as the apocalypse itself is obscure. when he said "i have overcome the _world_" he had overcome the cause of all doubt, the belief in the outside appearances and not in the living truth: he left it to his followers to say, from their own experience knowing the thing, not merely from the belief of his resurrection, "he has conquered death and the grave. o death, where is thy sting? o grave, where is thy victory?" it is the inward life of truth that conquers the outward death of appearance; and nothing else, no revelation from without, could conquer it. these miracles of our lord are the nearest we come to news of any kind concerning--i cannot say _from_--the other world. i except of course our lord's own resurrection. of that i shall yet speak as a miracle, for miracle it was, as certainly as any of our lord's, whatever interpretation be put upon the word. and i say _the nearest to news we come_, because not one of those raised from the dead gives _us_ at least an atom of information. is it possible they may have told their friends something which has filtered down to us in any shape? i turn to the cases on record. they are only three. the day after he cured the servant of the centurion at capernaum, jesus went to nain, and as they approached the gate--but i cannot part the story from the lovely words in which it is told by st luke: "there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city was with her. and when the lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, weep not. and he came and touched the bier; and they that bare him stood still. and he said, young man, i say unto thee, arise. and he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. and he delivered him to his mother." in each of the cases there is an especial fitness in the miracle. this youth was the only son of a widow; the daughter of jairus was his "one only daughter;" lazarus was the brother of two orphan sisters. i will not attempt by any lingering over the simple details to render the record more impressive. that lingering ought to be on the part of the reader of the narrative itself. friends crowded around a loss--the centre of the gathering that which _was not_--the sole presence the hopeless sign of a vanished treasure--an open gulf, as it were, down which love and tears and sad memories went plunging in a soundless cataract: the weeping mother--the dead man borne in the midst. they were going to the house of death, but life was between them and it--was walking to meet them, although they knew it not. a face of tender pity looks down on the mother. she heeds him not. he goes up to the bier, and lays his hand on it. the bearers recognize authority, and stand. a word, and the dead sits up. a moment more, and he is in the arms of his mother. o mother! mother! wast thou more favoured than other mothers? or was it that, for the sake of all mothers as well as thyself, thou wast made the type of the universal mother with the dead son--the raising of him but a foretaste of the one universal bliss of mothers with dead sons? that thou wert an exception would have ill met thy need, for thy motherhood could not be justified in thyself alone. it could not have its rights save on grounds universal. thy motherhood was common to all thy sisters. to have helped thee by exceptional favour would not have been to acknowledge thy motherhood. that must go mourning still, even with thy restored son in its bosom, for its claims are universal or they _are_ not. thou wast indeed a chosen one, but that thou mightest show to all the last fate of the mourning mother; for in god's dealings there are no exceptions. his laws are universal as he is infinite. jesus wrought no new thing--only the works of the father. what matters it that the dead come not back to us, if we go to them? _what matters it?_ said i! it is tenfold better. dear as home is, he who loves it best must know that what he calls home is not home, is but a shadow of home, is but the open porch of home, where all the winds of the world rave by turns, and the glowing fire of the true home casts lovely gleams from within. certainly this mother did not thus lose her son again. doubtless next she died first, knowing then at last that she had only to wait. the dead must have their sorrow too, but when they find it is well with them, they can sit and wait by the mouth of the coming stream better than those can wait who see the going stream bear their loves down to the ocean of the unknown. the dead sit by the river-mouths of time: the living mourn upon its higher banks. but for the joy of the mother, we cannot conceive it. no mother even who has lost her son, and hopes one blessed eternal day to find him again, can conceive her gladness. had it been all a dream? a dream surely in this sense, that the final, which alone, in the full sense, is god's will, must ever cast the look of a dream over all that has gone before. when we last awake, we shall know that we dreamed. even every honest judgment, feeling, hope, desire, will show itself a dream--with this difference from some dreams, that the waking is the more lovely, that nothing is lost, but everything gained, in the full blaze of restored completeness. how triumphant would this mother die, when her turn came! and how calmly would the restored son go about the duties of the world. [footnote: those who can take the trouble, and are capable of understanding it, will do well to study robert browning's "epistle of an arab physician."] he sat up and began to speak. it is vain to look into that which god has hidden; for surely it is by no chance that we are left thus in the dark. "he began to speak." why does not the evangelist go on to give us some hint of what he said? would not the hearts of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, children, husbands--who shall say where the divine madness of love will cease?--grandfathers, grandmothers--themselves with flickering flame--yes, grandchildren, weeping over the loss of the beloved gray head and tremulously gentle voice--would not all these have blessed god for st luke's record of what the son of the widow said? for my part, i thank god he was silent. when i think of the pictures of heaven drawn from the attempt of prophecy to utter its visions in the poor forms of the glory of earth, i see it better that we should walk by faith, and not by a fancied sight. i judge that the region beyond is so different from ours, so comprising in one surpassing excellence all the goods of ours, that any attempt of the had-been-dead to describe it, would have resulted in the most wretched of misconceptions. such might please the lower conditions of christian development--but so much the worse, for they could not fail to obstruct its further growth. it is well that st luke is silent; or that the mother and the friends who stood by the bier, heard the words of the returning spirit only as the babble of a child from which they could draw no definite meaning, and to which they could respond only by caresses. the story of the daughter of jairus is recorded briefly by st matthew, more fully by st luke, most fully by st mark. one of the rulers of the synagogue at capernaum falls at the feet of our lord, saying his little daughter is at the point of death. she was about twelve years of age. he begs the lord to lay his hands on her that she may live. our lord goes with him, followed by many people. on his way to restore the child he is arrested by a touch. he makes no haste to outstrip death. we can imagine the impatience of the father when the lord stood and asked who touched him. what did that matter? his daughter was dying; death would not wait. but the woman's heart and soul must not be passed by. the father with the only daughter must wait yet a little. the will of god cannot be outstripped. "while he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's house certain which said, thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the master any further?" "ah! i thought so! there it is! death has won the race!" we may suppose the father to say--bitterly within himself. but jesus, while he tried the faith of men, never tried it without feeding its strength. with the trial he always gives the way of escape. "as soon as jesus heard the word that was spoken"--not leaving it to work its agony of despair first--"he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, be not afraid; only believe." they are such simple words--commonplace in the ears of those who have heard them often and heeded them little! but containing more for this man's peace than all the consolations of philosophy, than all the enforcements of morality; yea, even than the raising of his daughter itself. to arouse the higher, the hopeful, the trusting nature of a man; to cause him to look up into the unknown region of mysterious possibilities--the god so poorly known--is to do infinitely more for a man than to remove the pressure of the direst evil without it. i will go further: to arouse the hope that there may be a god with a heart like our own is more for the humanity in us than to produce the absolute conviction that there is a being who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the fountains of waters. jesus is the express image of god's substance, and in him we know the heart of god. to nourish faith in himself was the best thing he could do for the man. we hear of no word from the ruler further. if he answered not our lord in words, it is no wonder. the compressed lip and the uplifted eye would say more than any words to the heart of the saviour. now it would appear that he stopped the crowd and would let them go no farther. they could not all see, and he did not wish them to see. it was not good for men to see too many miracles. they would feast their eyes, and then cease to wonder or think. the miracle, which would be all, and quite dissociated from religion, with many of them, would cease to be wonderful, would become a common thing with most. yea, some would cease to believe that it had been. they would say she did sleep after all--she was not dead. a wonder is a poor thing for faith after all; and the miracle could be only a wonder in the eyes of those who had not prayed for it, and could not give thanks for it; who did not feel that in it they were partakers of the love of god. jesus must have hated anything like display. god's greatest work has never been done in crowds, but in closets; and when it works out from thence, it is not upon crowds, but upon individuals. a crowd is not a divine thing. it is not a body. its atoms are not members one of another. a crowd is a chaos over which the spirit of god has yet to move, ere each retires to his place to begin his harmonious work, and unite with all the rest in the organized chorus of the human creation. the crowd must be dispersed that the church may be formed. the relation of the crowd to the miracle is rightly reflected in what came to the friends of the house. to them, weeping and wailing greatly, after the eastern fashion, he said when he entered, "why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." they laughed him to scorn. he put them all out. but what did our lord mean by those words--"the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth"? not certainly that, as we regard the difference between death and sleep, his words were to be taken literally; not that she was only in a state of coma or lethargy; not even that it was a case of suspended animation as in catalepsy; for the whole narrative evidently intends us to believe that she was dead after the fashion we call death. that this was not to be dead after the fashion our lord called death, is a blessed and lovely fact. neither can it mean, that she was not dead as others, in that he was going to wake her so soon; for they did not know that, and therefore it could give no ground for the expostulation, "why make ye this ado, and weep?" nor yet could it come only from the fact that to his eyes death and sleep were so alike, the one needing the power of god for awaking just as much as the other. true they must be more alike in his eyes than even in the eyes of the many poets who have written of "death and his brother sleep;" but he sees the differences none the less clearly, and how they look to us, and his knowledge could be no reason for reproaching our ignorance. the explanation seems to me large and simple. these people professed to believe in the resurrection of the dead, and did believe after some feeble fashion. they were not sadducees, for they were the friends of a ruler of the synagogue. our lord did not bring the news of resurrection to the world: that had been believed, in varying degrees, by all peoples and nations from the first: the resurrection he taught was a far deeper thing--the resurrection from dead works to serve the living and true god. but as with the greater number even of christians, although it was part of their creed, and had some influence upon their moral and spiritual condition, their practical faith in the resurrection of the body was a poor affair. in the moment of loss and grief, they thought little about it. they lived then in the present almost alone; they were not saved by hope. the reproach therefore of our lord was simply that they did not take from their own creed the consolation they ought. if the child was to be one day restored to them, then she was not dead as their tears and lamentations would imply. any one of themselves who believed in god and the prophets, might have stood up and said--"mourners, why make such ado? the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. you shall again clasp her to your bosom. hope, and fear not--only believe." it was in this sense, i think, that our lord spoke. but it may not at first appear how much grander the miracle itself appears in the light of this simple interpretation of the master's words. the sequel stands in the same relation to the words as if--turning into the death-chamber, and bringing the maid out by the hand--he had said to them: "see--i told you she was not dead but sleeping." the words apply to all death, just as much as to that in which this girl lay. the lord brings his assurance, his knowledge of what we do not know, to feed our feeble faith. it is as if he told us that our notion of death is all wrong, that there is no such thing as we think it; that we should be nearer the truth if we denied it altogether, and gave to what we now call death the name of sleep, for it is but a passing appearance, and no right cause of such misery as we manifest in its presence. i think it was from this word of our lord, and from the same utterance in the case of lazarus, that st paul so often uses the word sleep for die and for death. indeed the notion of death, as we feel it, seems to have vanished entirely from st paul's mind--he speaks of things so in a continuity, not even referring to the change--not even saying before death or after death, as if death made no atom of difference in the progress of holy events, the divine history of the individual and of the race together. in a word, when he raised the dead, the son did neither more nor less nor other than the work of the father--what he is always doing; he only made it manifest a little sooner to the eyes and hearts of men. but they to whom he spoke laughed him to scorn. they knew she was dead, and their unfaithfulness blinded their hearts to what he meant. they were unfit to behold the proof of what he had said. such as they, in such mood, could gather from it no benefit. a faithful heart alone is capable of understanding the proof of the truest things. it is faith towards god which alone can lay hold of any of his facts. there is a foregoing fitness. therefore he put them all out. but the father and mother, whose love and sorrow made them more easily persuaded of mighty things, more accessible to holy influences, and the three disciples, whose faith rendered them fit to behold otherwise dangerous wonders, he took with him into the chamber where the damsel lay--dead toward men--sleeping toward god. dead as she was, she only slept. "damsel, i say unto thee, arise." "and her spirit came again," "and straightway the damsel arose and walked," "and he commanded to give her meat." for in the joy of her restoration, they might forget that the more complete the health of a worn and exhausted body, the more needful was food--food which, in all its commonness, might well support the miracle; for not only did it follow by the next word to that which had wrought the miracle, but it worked in perfect harmony with the law which took shape in this resurrection, and in its relations to the human being involved no whit less marvel than lay in the miracle itself. the raising of the dead and the feeding of the living are both and equally divine--therefore in utter harmony. and we do not any more understand the power in the body which takes to itself that food, than we understand the power going out from jesus to make this girl's body capable of again employing its ministrations. they are both of one and must be perfect in harmony, the one as much the outcome of law as the other. he charges the parents to be silent, it may be for his sake, who did not want to be made a mere wonder of, but more probably for their sakes, that the holy thing might not evaporate in speech, or be defiled with foolish talk and the glorification of self-importance in those for whom a mighty wonder had been done; but that in silence the seed might take root in their hearts and bring forth living fruit in humility, and uprightness, and faith. and now for the wonderful story of lazarus. in this miracle one might think the desire of jesus for his friend's presence through his own coming trouble, might have had a share, were it not that we never find him working a miracle for himself. he knew the perfect will of the father, and left all to him. those who cannot know that will and do not care for it, have to fall into trouble that they may know god as the saviour from their own doings--as the fountain of all their well-being. this jesus had not to learn, and therefore could need no miracle wrought for him. even his resurrection was all for others. that miracle was wrought in, not for him. he knew lazarus was dying. he abode where he was and let him die. for a hard and therefore precious lesson for sisters and friends lay in that death, and the more the love the more precious the lesson--the same that lies in every death; and the end the same for all who love--resurrection. the raising of lazarus is the type of the raising of all the dead. of lazarus, as of the daughter of jairus, he said "he sleepeth; but i go that i may awake him out of sleep." he slept as every dead man sleeps. read the story. try to think not only what the disciples felt, but what jesus was thinking; how he, who saw the other side, regarded the death he was about to destroy. "lord, if thou hadst been here," said martha, "my brother had not died." did she mean to hint what she had not faith enough to ask? "thy brother shall rise again," said the lord. but her faith was so weak that she took little comfort from the assurance. alas! she knew what it meant. she knew all about it. he spoke of the general far-off resurrection, which to her was a very little thing. it was true he should rise again; but what was that to the present consuming grief? a thousand years might be to god as one day, but to martha the one day was a thousand years. it is only to him who entirely believes in god that the thousand years become one day also. for he that believes shares in the vision of him in whom he believes. it is through such faith that jesus would help her--far beyond the present awful need. he seeks to raise her confidence in himself by the strongest assertions of the might that was in him. "i am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live!" the death of not believing in god--the god revealed in jesus--is the only death. the other is nowhere but in the fears and fancies of unbelief. "and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." there is for him nothing to be called death; nothing that is what death looks to us. "believest thou this?" martha was an honest woman. she did not fully understand what he meant. she could not, therefore, do more than assent to it. but she believed in him, and that much she could tell him plainly. "yea, lord: i believe that thou art the christ, the son of god, which should come into the world." and that hope with the confession arose in her heart, she gave the loveliest sign: she went and called her sister. but even in the profounder mary faith reached only to the words of her sister: "lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." when he saw her trouble, and that of the jews with her, he was troubled likewise. but why? the purest sympathy with what was about to vanish would not surely make him groan in his spirit. why, then, this trouble in our lord's heart? we have a right, yea, a duty, to understand it if we can, for he showed it. i think it was caused by an invading sense of the general misery of poor humanity from the lack of that faith in the father without which he, the son, could do, or endure, nothing. if the father ceased the son must cease. it was the darkness between god and his creatures that gave room for and was filled with their weeping and wailing over their dead. to them death must appear an unmitigated and irremediable evil. how frightful to feel as they felt! to see death as they saw it! nothing could help their misery but that faith in the infinite love which he had come to bring them; but how hard it was to persuade them to receive it! and how many weeping generations of loving hearts must follow! his father was indeed with them all, but how slowly and painfully would each learn the one precious fact! "where have ye laid him?" he asked. "lord, come and see," they answered, in such mournful accents of human misery that he wept with them. they come to the grave. "take ye away the stone." "lord, by this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead four days," said she who believed in the resurrection and the life! they are the saddest of sad words. i hardly know how to utter the feeling they raise. in all the relations of mortality to immortality, of body to soul, there are painful and even ugly things, things to which, by common consent, we refer only upon dire necessity, and with a sense of shame. happy they in whom the mortal has put on immortality! decay and its accompaniments, all that makes the most beloved of the _appearances_ of god's creation a terror, compelling us to call to the earth for succour, and pray her to take our dead out of our sight, to receive her own back into her bosom, and unmake in secret darkness that which was the glory of the light in our eyes--this was upper-most with martha, even in the presence of him to whom death was but a slave to come and go at his will. careful of his feelings, of the shock to his senses, she would oppose his will. for the dead brother's sake also, that he should not be dishonoured in his privacy, she would not have had that stone removed. but had it been as martha feared, who so tender with feeble flesh as the son of man? who so unready to impute the shame it could not help? who less fastidious over the painful working of the laws of his own world? entire affection hateth nicer hands. and at the worst, what was decay to him, who could recall the disuniting atoms under the restored law of imperial life? "said i not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of god?" again i say _the essential_ glory of god who raises all the dead, not merely _an exceptional_ glory of god in raising this one dead man. they should see not corruption but glory. no evil odour of dissolution should assail them, but glowing life should spring from the place of the dead; light should be born from the very bosom of the darkness. they took away the friendly stone. then jesus spoke, not to the dead man, but to the living father. the men and women about him must know it as the father's work. "and jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, father, i thank thee that thou hast heard me. and i knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by i said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." so might they believe that the work was god's, that he was doing the will of god, and that they might trust in the god whose will was such as this. he claimed the presence of god in what he did, that by the open claim and the mighty deed following it they might see that the father justified what the son said, and might receive him and all that he did as the manifestation of the father. and now-- "lazarus, come forth." slow toiling, with hand and foot bound in the grave clothes, he that had been dead struggled forth to the light. what an awful moment! when did ever corruption and glory meet and embrace as now! oh! what ready hands, eager almost to helplessness, were stretched trembling towards the feeble man returning from his strange journey, to seize and carry him into the day--their poor day, which they thought _all_ the day, forgetful of that higher day which for their sakes he had left behind, content to walk in moonlight a little longer, gladdened by the embraces of his sisters, and--perhaps--i do not know--comforting their hearts with news of the heavenly regions! joy of all joys! the dead come back! is it any wonder that this mary should spend three hundred pence on an ointment for the feet of the raiser of the dead? i doubt if he told them anything? i do not think he could make even his own flesh and blood--of woman-kind, quick to understand--know the things he had seen and heard and felt. all that can be said concerning this, is thus said by our beloved brother tennyson in his book _in memoriam_: 'where wert thou, brother, those four days?' there lives no record of reply, which telling what it is to die, had surely added praise to praise. behold a man raised up by christ! the rest remaineth unrevealed; he told it not; or something sealed the lips of that evangelist. why are we left in such ignorance? without the raising of the dead, without the rising of the saviour himself, christianity would not have given what it could of _hope_ for the future. hope is not faith, but neither is faith sight; and if we have hope we are not miserable men. but christianity must not, could not interfere with the discipline needful for its own fulfilment, could not depose the schoolmaster that leads unto christ. one main doubt and terror which drives men towards the revelation in jesus, is this strange thing death. how shall any man imagine he is complete in himself, and can do without a father in heaven, when he knows that he knows neither the mystery whence he sprung by birth, nor the mystery to which he goes by death? god has given us room away from himself as robert browning says:-- ..."god, whose pleasure brought man into being, stands away, as it were, an hand-breadth off, to give room for the newly-made to live, and look at him from a place apart, and use his gifts of brain and heart"-- and this room, in its time-symbol, is bounded by darkness on the one hand, and darkness on the other. whence i came and whither i go are dark: how can i live in peace without the god who ordered it thus? faith is my only refuge--an absolute belief in a being so much beyond myself, that he can do all for this _me_ with utter satisfaction to this _me_, protecting all its rights, jealously as his own from which they spring, that he may make me at last one with himself who is my deeper self, inasmuch as his thought of me is my life. and not to know him, even if i could go on living and happy without him, is death. it may be said, "why all this? why not go on like a brave man to meet your fate, careless of what that fate may be?" "but what if this fate _should_ depend on myself? am i to be careless then?" i answer. "the fate is so uncertain! if it be annihilation, why quail before it? cowardice at least is contemptible." "is not indifference more contemptible? that one who has once thought should not care to go on to think? that this glory should perish--is it no grief? is life not a good with all its pain? ought one to be willing to part with a good? ought he not to cleave fast thereto? have you never grudged the coming sleep, because you must cease for the time to _be_ so much as you were before? for my part, i think the man who can go to sleep without faith in god has yet to learn what being is. he who knows not god cannot, however, have much to lose in losing being. and yet--and yet--did he never love man or woman or child? is he content that there should be no more of it? above all, is he content to go on with man and woman and child now, careless of whether the love is a perishable thing? if it be, why does he not kill himself, seeing it is all a lie--a false appearance of a thing too glorious to be fact, but for which our best nature calls aloud--and cannot have it? if one knew for certain that there was no life beyond this, then the noble thing would be to make the best of this, yea even then to try after such things as are written in the gospel as we call it--for they _are_ the noblest. that i am sure of, whatever i may doubt. but not to be sure of annihilation, and yet choose it to be true, and act as if it were true, seems to me to indicate a nature at strife with immortality--bound for the dust by its own choice--of the earth, and returning to the dust." the man will say, "that is yielding everything. let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. i am of the dust, for i believe in nothing beyond." "no," i return. "i recognize another law in myself which seems to me infinitely higher. and i think that law is in you also, although you are at strife with it, and will revive in you to your blessed discontent. by that i will walk, and not by yours--a law which bids me strive after what i am not but may become--a law in me striving against the law of sin and down-dragging decay--a law which is one with my will, and, if true, must of all things make one at last. if i am made to live i ought not to be willing to cease. this unwillingness to cease--above all, this unwillingness to cease to love my own, the fore-front to me of my all men--may be in me the sign, may _well_ be in me the sign that i am made to live. above all to pass away without the possibility of making reparation to those whom i have wronged, with no chance of saying _i am sorry--what shall i do for you? grant me some means of delivering myself from this burden of wrong_--seems to me frightful. no god to help one to be good now! no god who cares whether one is good or not! if a god, then one who will not give his creature time enough to grow good, even if he is growing better, but will blot him out like a rain-drop! great god, forbid--if thou art. if thou art not, then this, like all other prayers, goes echoing through the soulless vaults of a waste universe, from the thought of which its peoples recoil in horror. death, then, is genial, soul-begetting, and love-creating; and life is nowhere, save in the imaginations of the children of the grave. whence, then, oh! whence came those their imaginations? death, thou art not my father! grave, thou art not my mother! i come of another kind, nor shall ye usurp dominion over me." what better sign of immortality than the raising of the dead could god give? he cannot, however, be always raising the dead before our eyes; for then the holiness of death's ends would be a failure. we need death; only it shall be undone once and again for a time, that we may know it is not what it seems to us. i have already said that probably we are not capable of being told in words what the other world is. but even the very report through the ages that the dead came back, as their friends had known them, with the old love unlost in the grave, with the same face to smile and bless, is precious indeed. that they remain the same in all that made them lovely, is the one priceless fact--if we may but hope in it as a fact. that we shall behold, and clasp, and love them again follows of simple necessity. we cannot be sure of the report as if it were done before our own eyes, yet what a hope it gives even to him whose honesty and his faith together make him, like martha, refrain speech, not daring to say _i believe_ of all that is reported! i think such a one will one day be able to believe more than he even knows how to desire. for faith in jesus will well make up for the lack of the sight of the miracle. does god, then, make death look what it is not? why not let it appear what it is, and prevent us from forming false judgments of it? it is our low faithlessness that makes us misjudge it, and nothing but faith could make us judge it aright. and that, while in faithlessness, we should thus misjudge it, is well. in what it appears to us, it is a type of what we are without god. but there is no falsehood in it. the dust must go back to the dust. he who believes in the body more than in the soul, cleaves to this aspect of death: he who believes in thought, in mind, in love, in truth, can see the other side--can rejoice over the bursting shell which allows the young oak to creep from its kernel-prison. the lower is true, but the higher overcomes and absorbs it. "when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." when the spirit of death is seen, the body of death vanishes from us. death is god's angel of birth. we fear him. the dying stretches out loving hands of hope towards him. i do not believe that death is to the dying the dreadful thing it looks to the beholders. i think it is more like what the spirit may then be able to remember of its own birth as a child into this lower world, this porch of the heavenly. how will he love his mother then! and all humanity in her, and god who gave her, and god who gives her back! the future lies dark before us, with an infinite hope in the darkness. to be at peace concerning it on any other ground than the love of god, would be an absolute loss. better fear and hope and prayer, than knowledge and peace without the prayer. to sum up: an express revelation in words would probably be little intelligible. in christ we have an ever-growing revelation. he is the resurrection and the life. as we know him we know our future. in our ignorance lies a force of need, compelling us towards god. in our ignorance likewise lies the room for the development of the simple will, as well as the necessity for arousing it. hence this ignorance is but the shell of faith. in this, as in all his miracles, our lord _shows_ in one instance what his father is ever doing without showing it. even the report of this is the best news we can have from the _other_ world--as we call it. ix. the government of nature. the miracles i include in this class are the following:-- . the turning of water into wine, already treated of, given by st john. . the draught of fishes, given by st luke. . the draught of fishes, given by st john. the feeding of the four thousand, given by st matthew and st mark. . the feeding of the five thousand, recorded by all the evangelists. . the walking on the sea, given by st matthew, st mark, and st john. . the stilling of the storm, given by st matthew, st mark, and st luke. . the fish bringing the piece of money, told by st matthew alone. these miracles, in common with those already considered, have for their end the help or deliverance of man. they differ from those, however, in operating mediately, through a change upon external things, and not at once on their human objects. but besides the fact that they have to do with what we call nature, they would form a class on another ground. in those cases of disease, the miracles are for the setting right of what has gone wrong, the restoration of the order of things,--namely, of the original condition of humanity. no doubt it is a law of nature that where there is sin there should be suffering; but even its cure helps to restore that righteousness which is highest nature; for the cure of suffering must not be confounded with the absence of suffering. but the miracles of which i have now to speak, show themselves as interfering with what we may call the righteous laws of nature. water should wet the foot, should ingulf him who would tread its surface. bread should come from the oven last, from the field first. fishes should be now here now there, according to laws ill understood of men--nay, possibly according to a piscine choice quite unknown of men. wine should take ripening in the grape and in the bottle. in all these cases it is otherwise. yet even in these, i think, the restoration of an original law--the supremacy of righteous man, is foreshown. while a man cannot order his own house as he would, something is wrong in him, and therefore in his house. i think a true man should be able to rule winds and waters and loaves and fishes, for he comes of the father who made the house for him. had jesus not been capable of these things, he might have been the best of men, but either he could not have been a perfect man, or the perfect god, if such there were, was not in harmony with the perfect man. man is not master in his own house because he is not master in himself, because he is not a law unto himself--is not himself obedient to the law by which he exists. harmony, that is law, alone is power. discord is weakness. god alone is perfect, living, self-existent law. i will try, in a few words, to give the ground on which i find it possible to accept these miracles. i cannot lay it down as for any other man. i do not wonder at most of those to whom the miracles are a stumbling-block. i do a little wonder at those who can believe in christ and yet find them a stumbling-block. how god creates, no man can tell. but as man is made in god's image, he may think about god's work, and dim analogies may arise out of the depth of his nature which have some resemblance to the way in which god works. i say then, that, as we are the offspring of god--the children of his will, like as the thoughts move in a man's mind, we live in god's mind. when god thinks anything, then that thing _is_. his thought of it is its life. everything is because god thinks it into being. can it then be very hard to believe that he should alter by a thought any form or appearance of things about us? "it is inconsistent to work otherwise than by law." true; but we know so little of this law that we cannot say what is essential in it, and what only the so far irregular consequence of the unnatural condition of those for whom it was made, but who have not yet willed god's harmony. we know so little of law that we cannot certainly say what would be an infringement of this or that law. that which at first sight appears as such, may be but the operating of a higher law which rightly dominates the other. it is the law, as we call it, that a stone should fall to the ground. a man may place his hand beneath the stone, and then, _if his hand be strong enough_, it is the law that the stone shall not fall to the ground. the law has been lawfully prevented from working its full end. in similar ways, god might stop the working of one law by the intervention of another. such intervention, if not understood by us, would be what we call a miracle. possibly a different condition of the earth, producible according to law, might cause everything to fly off from its surface instead of seeking it. the question is whether or not we can believe that the usual laws might be set aside by laws including higher principles and wider operations. all i have to answer is--give me good reason, and i can. a man may say--"what seems good reason to you, does not to me." i answer, "we are both accountable to that being, if such there be, who has lighted in us the candle of judgment. to him alone we stand or fall. but there must be a final way of right, towards which every willing heart is led,--and which no one can find who does not seek it." all i want to show here, is a conceivable region in which a miracle might take place without any violence done to the order of things. our power of belief depends greatly on our power of imagining a region in which the things might be. i do not see how some people _could_ believe what to others may offer small difficulty. let us beware lest what we call faith be but the mere assent of a mind which has cared and thought so little about the objects of its so-called faith, that it has never seen the difficulties they involve. some such believers are the worst antagonists of true faith--the children of the pharisees of old. if any one say we ought to receive nothing of which we have no experience; i answer, there is in me a necessity, a desire before which all my experience shrivels into a mockery. its complement must lie beyond. we ought, i grant, to accept nothing for which we cannot see the probability of some sufficient reason, but i thank god that this sufficient reason is not for me limited to the realm of experience. to suppose that it was, would change the hope of a life that might be an ever-burning sacrifice of thanksgiving, into a poor struggle with events and things and chances--to doom the psyche to perpetual imprisonment in the worm. i desire the higher; i care not to live for the lower. the one would make me despise my fellows and recoil with disgust from a self i cannot annihilate; the other fills me with humility, hope, and love. is the preference for the one over the other foolish then--even to the meanest judgment? a higher condition of harmony with law, may one day enable us to do things which must now _appear_ an interruption of law. i believe it is in virtue of the absolute harmony in him, his perfect righteousness, that god can create at all. if man were in harmony with this, if he too were righteous, he would inherit of his father a something in his degree correspondent to the creative power in him; and the world he inhabits, which is but an extension of his body, would, i think, be subject to him in a way surpassing his wildest dreams of dominion, for it would be the perfect dominion of holy law--a virtue flowing to and from him through the channel of a perfect obedience. i suspect that our lord in all his dominion over nature, set forth only the complete man--man as god means him one day to be. why should he not know where the fishes were? or even make them come at his will? why should not that will be potent as impulse in them? if we admit what i hail as the only fundamental idea upon which i can speculate harmoniously with facts, and as alone disclosing regions wherein contradictions are soluble, and doubts previsions of loftier truth--i mean the doctrine of the incarnation; or if even we admit that jesus was good beyond any other goodness we know, why should it not seem possible that the whole region of inferior things might be more subject to him than to us? and if more, why not altogether? i believe that some of these miracles were the natural result of a physical nature perfect from the indwelling of a perfect soul, whose unity with the life of all things and in all things was absolute--in a word, whose sonship was perfect. if in the human form god thus visited his people, he would naturally show himself lord over their circumstances. he will not lord it over their minds, for such lordship is to him abhorrent: they themselves must see and rejoice in acknowledging the lordship which makes them free. there was no grand display, only the simple doing of what at the time was needful. some say it is a higher thing to believe of him that he took things just as they were, and led the revealing life without the aid of wonders. on any theory this is just what he did as far as his own life was concerned. but he had no ambition to show himself the best of men. he comes to reveal the father. he will work even wonders to that end, for the sake of those who could not believe as he did and had to be taught it. no miracle was needful for himself: he saw the root of the matter--the care of god. but he revealed this root in a few rare and hastened flowers to the eyes that could not see to the root. there is perfect submission to lower law for himself, but revelation of the father to them by the introduction of higher laws operating in the upper regions bordering upon ours, not separated from ours by any impassable gulf--rather connected by gently ascending stairs, many of whose gradations he could blend in one descent. he revealed the father as being _under_ no law, but as law itself, and the cause of the laws we know--the cause of all harmony because himself _the_ harmony. men had to be delivered not only from the fear of suffering and death, but from the fear, which is a kind of worship, of nature. nature herself must be shown subject to the father and to him whom the father had sent. men must believe in the great works of the father through the little works of the son: all that he showed was little to what god was doing. they had to be helped to see that it was god who did such things as often as they were done. he it is who causes the corn to grow for man. he gives every fish that a man eats. even if things are terrible yet they are god's, and the lord will still the storm for their faith in him--tame a storm, as a man might tame a wild beast--for his father measures the waters in the hollow of his hand, and men are miserable not to know it. for himself, i repeat, his faith is enough; he sleeps on his pillow nor dreams of perishing. on the individual miracles of this class, i have not much to say. the first of them was wrought in the animal kingdom. he was teaching on the shore of the lake, and the people crowded him. that he might speak with more freedom, he stepped into an empty boat, and having prayed simon the owner of it, who was washing his nets near by, to thrust it a little from the shore, sat down, and no longer incommoded by the eagerness of his audience, taught them from the boat. when he had ended he told simon to launch out into the deep, and let down his nets for a draught. simon had little hope of success, for there had been no fish there all night; but he obeyed, and caught such a multitude of fishes that the net broke. they had to call another boat to their aid, and both began to sink from the overload of fishes. but the great marvel of it wrought on the mind of simon as every wonder tends to operate on the mind of an honest man: it brought his sinfulness before him. in self-abasement he fell down at jesus' knees. whether he thought of any individual sins at the moment, we cannot tell; but he was painfully dissatisfied with himself. he knew he was not what he ought to be. i am unwilling however to believe that such a man desired, save, it may be, as a passing involuntary result of distress, to be rid of the holy presence. i judge rather that his feeling was like that of the centurion--that he felt himself unworthy to have the lord in his boat. he may have feared that the lord took him for a good man, and his honesty could not endure such a mistake: "depart from me, for i am a sinful man, o lord." the lord accepted the spirit, therefore _not_ the word of his prayer. "fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men." his sense of sinfulness, so far from driving the lord from him, should draw other men to him. as soon as that cry broke from his lips, he had become fit to be a fisher of men. he had begun to abjure that which separated man from man. after his resurrection, st john tells us the lord appeared one morning, on the shore of the lake, to some of his disciples, who had again been toiling all night in vain. he told them once more how to cast their net, and they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. "it is the lord," said st john, purer-hearted, perhaps therefore keener-eyed, than the rest. since the same thing had occurred before, simon had become the fisher of men, but had sinned grievously against his lord. he knew that lord so much better now, however, that when he heard it was he, instead of crying _depart from me_, he cast himself into the sea to go to him. i take next the feeding of the four thousand with the seven loaves and the few little fishes, and the feeding of the five thousand with the five loaves and the two fishes. concerning these miracles, i think i have already said almost all i have to say. if he was the son of god, the bread might as well grow in his hands as the corn in the fields. it is, i repeat, only a doing in condensed form, hence one more easily associated with its real source, of that which god is for ever doing more widely, more slowly, and with more detail both of fundamental wonder and of circumstantial loveliness. whence more fittingly might food come than from the hands of such an elder brother? no doubt there will always be men who cannot believe it:--happy are they who demand a good reason, and yet can believe a wonder! associated with words which appeared to me foolish, untrue, or even poor in their content, i should not believe it. associated with such things as he spoke, i can receive it with ease, and i cherish it with rejoicing. it must be noted in respect of the feeding of the five thousand, that while the other evangelists merely relate the deed as done for the necessities of the multitude, st john records also the use our lord made of the miracle. it was the outcome of his essential relation to humanity. of humanity he was ever the sustaining food. to humanity he was about to give himself in an act of such utter devotion as could only be shadowed--now in the spoken, afterwards in the acted symbol of the eucharist. the miracle was a type of his life as the life of the world, a sign that from him flows all the weal of his creatures. the bread we eat is but its outer husk: the true bread is the lord himself, to have whom in us is eternal life. "except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you." he knew that the grand figure would disclose to the meditation of the loving heart infinitely more of the truth of the matter than any possible amount of definition and explanation, and yet must ever remain far short of setting forth the holy fact to the boldest and humblest mind. but lest they should start upon a wrong track for the interpretation of it, he says to his disciples afterwards, that this body of his should return to god; that what he had said concerning the eating of it had a spiritual sense: "it is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing"--for that. in words he contradicts what he said before, that they might see the words to have meant infinitely more than as words they were able to express; that not their bodies on his body, but their souls must live on his soul, by a union and communion of which the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood was, after all, but a poor and faint figure. in this miracle, for the souls as for the bodies of men, he did and revealed the work of the father. he who has once understood the meaning of christ's words in connection with this miracle, can never be content they should be less than true concerning his father in heaven. whoever would have a perfect father, must believe that he bestows his very being for the daily food of his creatures. he who loves the glory of god will be very jealous of any word that would enhance his greatness by representing him incapable of suffering. verily god has taken and will ever take and endure his share, his largest share of that suffering in and through which the whole creation groans for the sonship. follows at once the equally wonderful story of his walking on the sea to the help of his disciples. after the former miracle, the multitude would have taken him by force to make him their king. any kind of honour they would readily give him except that obedience for the truth's sake which was all he cared for. he left them and went away into a mountain alone to pray to his father. likely he was weary in body, and also worn in spirit for lack of that finer sympathy which his disciples could not give him being very earthly yet. he who loves his fellows and labours among those who can ill understand him will best know what this weariness of our lord must have been like. he had to endure the world-pressure of surrounding humanity in all its ungodlike phases. hence even he, the everlasting son of the father, found it needful to retire for silence and room and comfort into solitary places. there his senses would be free, and his soul could the better commune with the father. the mountain-top was his chamber, the solitude around him its closed door, the evening sky over his head its open window. there he gathered strength from the will of the father for what yet remained to be done for the world's redemption. how little could the men below, who would have taken him by force and made him a king, understand of such communion! yet every one of them must go hungering and thirsting and grasping in vain, until the door of that communion was opened for him. they would have made him a king: he would make them poor in spirit, mighty in aspiration, all kings and priests unto god. but amidst his prayer, amidst the eternal calm of his rapturous communion, he saw his disciples thwarted by a wind stronger than all their rowing: he descended the hill and walked forth on the water to their help. if ignorant yet devout speculation may be borne with here, i venture to say that i think the change of some kind that was necessary somehow before the body of the son of man could, like the spirit of old, move upon the face of the waters, passed, not upon the water, but, by the will of the son of man himself, upon his own body. i shall have more to say concerning this in a following chapter--now i merely add that we know nothing yet, or next to nothing, of the relation between a right soul and a healthy body. to some no doubt the notion of a healthy body implies chiefly a perfection of all the animal functions, which is, on the supposition, a matter of course; but what i should mean by an absolutely healthy body is, one entirely under the indwelling spirit, and responsive immediately to all the laws of its supremacy, whatever those laws may be in the divine ideal of a man. as we are now, we find the diseased body tyrannizing over the almost helpless mind: the healthy body would be the absolutely obedient body. what power over his own dwelling a saviour coming fresh from the closest speech with him who made that body for holy subjection, might have, who can tell! if i hear of any reasonable wonder resulting therefrom, i shall not find it hard to believe, and shall be willing to wait until i, pure, inhabit an obedient house, to understand the plain thing which is now a mystery. meantime i can honour the laws i do know, and which honest men tell me they have discovered, no less than those honest men who--without my impulse, it may be, to speculate in this direction--think such as i foolish in employing the constructive faculty with regard to these things. but where, i pray them, lies any field so absolutely its region as the unknown which yet the heart yearns to know? such cannot be the unknowable. it is endless comfort to think of something that _might_ be true. and the essence of whatever seems to a human heart to be true, i expect to find true--in greater forms, and without the degrading accidents which so often accompany it in the brain of the purest thinker. why should i not speculate in the only direction in which things to me worthy of speculation appear likely to lie? there is a wide _may be_ around us; and every true speculation widens the probability of changing the may _be_ into the _is_. the laws that are known and the laws that shall be known are all lights from the father of lights: he who reverently searches for such will not long mistake a flash in his own brain for the candle of the lord. but if he should mistake, he will be little the worse, so long as he is humble, and ready to acknowledge error; while, if he should be right, he will be none the worse for having seen the glimmer of the truth from afar--may, indeed, come to gather a little honour from those who, in the experimental verification of an idea, do not altogether forget that, without some foregone speculation, the very idea on which they have initiated their experiment, and are now expending their most valued labour, would never have appeared in their firmament to guide them to new facts and realities. nor would it be impossible to imagine how st peter might come within the sphere of the holy influence, so that he, too, for a moment should walk on the water. faith will yet prove itself as mighty a power as it is represented by certain words of the lord which are at present a stumbling-block even to devout christians, who are able to accept them only by putting explanations upon them which render them unworthy of his utterance. when i say _a power_, i do not mean in itself, but as connecting the helpless with the helpful, as uniting the empty need with the full supply, as being the conduit through which it is right and possible for the power of the creating god to flow to the created necessity. when the lord got into the boat, the wind ceased, "and immediately," says st john, "the ship was at the land whither they went." as to whether the ceasing of the wind was by the ordinary laws of nature, or some higher law first setting such in operation, no one who has followed the spirit of my remarks will wonder that i do not care to inquire: they are all of one. nor, in regard to their finding themselves so quickly at the end of their voyage, will they wonder if i think that we may have just one instance of space itself being subject to the obedient god, and that his wearied disciples, having toiled and rowed hard for so long, might well find themselves at their desired haven as soon as they received him into their boat. either god is all in all, or he is nothing. either jesus is the son of the father, or he did no miracle. either the miracles are fact, or i lose--not my faith in this man--but certain outward signs of truths which these very signs have aided me to discover and understand and see in themselves. the miracle of the stilling of the storm naturally follows here. why should not he, who taught his disciples that god numbered the very hairs of their heads, do what his father is constantly doing--still storms--bring peace out of uproar? of course, if the storm was stilled, it came about by natural causes--that is, by such as could still a storm. that anything should be done by unnatural causes, that is, causes not of the nature of the things concerned, is absurd. the sole question is whether nature works alone, as some speculators think, or whether there is a soul in her, namely, an intent;--whether these things are the result of thought, or whether they spring from a dead heart; unconscious, yet productive of conscious beings, to think, yea, speculate eagerly concerning a conscious harmony hinted at in their broken music and conscious discord; beings who, although thus born of unthinking matter, invent the notion of an all lovely, perfect, self-denying being, whose thought gives form to matter, life to nature, and thought to man--subjecting himself for their sakes to the troubles their waywardness has brought upon them, that they too may at length behold a final good--may see the holy face to face--think his thoughts and will his wisdom! that things should go by a law which does not recognize the loftiest in him, a man feels to be a mockery of him. there lies little more satisfaction in such a condition of things than if the whole were the fortuitous result of ever conflicting, never combining forces. wherever individual and various necessity, choice, and prayer, come in, there must be the present god, able and ready to fit circumstances to the varying need of the thinking, willing being he has created. machinery will not do here--perfect as it may be. that god might make a world to go on with absolute physical perfection to all eternity, i could easily believe; but where the gain?--nay, where the fitness, if he would train thinking beings to his own freedom? for such he must be ever present, ever have room to order things for their growth and change and discipline and enlightenment. the present living idea informing the cosmos, is nobler than all forsaken perfection--nobler, as a living man is nobler than an automaton. if one should say: "the laws of god ought to admit of no change," i answer: the same working of unalterable laws might under new circumstances _look_ a breach of those laws. that god will never alter his laws, i fully admit and uphold, for they are the outcome of his truth and fact; but that he might not act in ways unrecognizable by us as consistent with those laws, i have yet to see reason ere i believe. why should his perfect will be limited by our understanding of that will? should he be paralyzed because we are blind? that he should ever require us to believe of him what we think wrong, i do not believe; that he should present to our vision what may be inconsistent with our half-digested and constantly changing theories, i can well believe. why not--if only to keep us from petrifying an imperfect notion, and calling it an _idea_? what i would believe is, that a present god manages the direction of those laws, even as a man, in his inferior way, works out his own will in the midst and by means of those laws. shall god create that which shall fetter and limit and enslave himself? what should his laws, as known to us, be but the active mode in which he embodies certain truths--that mode also the outcome of his own nature? if so, they must be always capable of falling in with any, if not of effecting every, expression of his will. there remains but one miracle of this class to consider--one to some minds involving greater difficulties than all the rest. they say the story of the fish with a piece of money in its mouth is more like one of the tales of eastern fiction than a sober narrative of the quiet-toned gospel. i acknowledge a likeness: why might there not be some likeness between what god does and what man invents? but there is one noticeable difference: there is nothing of colour in the style of the story. no great roc, no valley of diamonds, no earthly grandeur whatever is hinted at in the poor bare tale. peter had to do with fishes every day of his life: an ordinary fish, taken with the hook, was here the servant of the lord--and why should not the poor fish have its share in the service of the master? why should it not show for itself and its kind that they were utterly his? that along with the waters in which they dwelt, and the wind which lifteth up the waves thereof, they were his creatures, and gladly under his dominion? what the scaly minister brought was no ring, no rich jewel, but a simple piece of money, just enough, i presume, to meet the demand of those whom, although they had no legal claim, our lord would not offend by a refusal; for he never cared to stand upon his rights, or treat that as a principle which might be waived without loss of righteousness. i take for granted that there was no other way at hand for those poor men to supply the sum required of them. x. miracles of destruction. if we regard the miracles of our lord as an epitome of the works of his father, there must be room for what we call destruction. in the grand process of existence, destruction is one of the phases of creation; for the inferior must ever be giving way for the growth of the superior: the husk must crumble and decay, that the seed may germinate and appear. as the whole creation passes on towards the sonship, death must ever be doing its sacred work about the lower regions, that life may ever arise triumphant, in its ascent towards the will of the father. i cannot therefore see good reason why the almost solitary act of destruction recorded in the story should seem unlike the master. true this kind is unlike the other class in this, that it has only an all but solitary instance: he did not come for the manifestation of such power. but why, when occasion appeared, should it not have its place? why might not the lord, consistently with his help and his healing, do that in one instance which his father is doing every day? i refer now, of course, to the withering of the fig-tree. in the midst of the freshest greenery of summer, you may see the wan branches of the lightning-struck tree. as a poet drawing his pen through syllable or word that mars his clear utterance or musical comment, such is the destruction of the maker. it is the indrawn sigh of the creating breath. our lord had already spoken the parable of the fig-tree that bore no fruit. this miracle was but the acted parable. here he puts into visible form that which before he had embodied in words. all shapes of argument must be employed to arouse the slumbering will of men. even the obedience that comes of the lowest fear is a first step towards an infinitely higher condition than that of the most perfect nature created incapable of sin. the right interpretation of the external circumstances, however, is of course necessary to the truth of the miracle. it seems to me to be the following. i do not know to whom i am primarily indebted for it. the time of the gathering of figs was near, but had not yet arrived: upon any fruitful tree one might hope to find a few ripe figs, and more that were eatable. the lord was hungry as he went to jerusalem from bethany, and saw on the way a tree with all the promise that a perfect foliage could give. he went up to it, "if haply he might find anything thereon." the leaves were all; fruit there was none in any stage; the tree was a pretence; it fulfilled not that for which it was sent. here was an opportunity in their very path of enforcing, by a visible sign proceeding from himself, one of the most important truths he had striven to teach them. what he had been saying was in him a living truth: he condemned the tree to become in appearance that which it was in fact--a useless thing: when they passed the following morning, it had withered away, was dried up from the roots. he did not urge in words the lesson of the miracle-parable; he left that to work when the fate of fruitless jerusalem should also have become fact. for the present the marvel of it possessed them too much for the reading of its lesson; therefore, perhaps, our lord makes little of the marvel and much of the power of faith; assuring them of answers to their prayers, but adding, according to st mark, that forgiveness of others is the indispensable condition of their own acceptance --fit lesson surely to hang on that withered tree. after all, the thing destroyed was only a tree. in respect of humanity there is but one distant, and how distant approach to anything similar! in the pseudo-evangels there are several tales of vengeance--not one in these books. the fact to which i refer is recorded by st john alone. it is, that when the "band of men and officers from the chief priests and pharisees" came to take him, and "jesus went forth and said unto them, whom seek ye?" and in reply to theirs, had said "i am he, they went backward and fell to the ground." there are one or two facts in connection with the record of this incident, which although not belonging quite immediately to my present design, i would yet note, with the questions they suggest. the synoptical gospels record the judas-kiss: st john does not. st john alone records the going backward and falling to the ground--prefacing the fact with the words, "and judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them." had not the presence of judas, then--perhaps his kiss--something to do with the discomfiture of these men? if so--and it seems to me probable--how comes it that st john alone omits the kiss--st john alone records the recoil? i repeat--if the kiss had to do with the recoil--as would seem from mystical considerations most probable, from artistic most suitable--why are they divided? i think just because those who saw, saw each a part, and record only what they saw or had testimony concerning. had st john seen the kiss, he who was so capable of understanding the mystical fitness of the connection of such a kiss with such a recoil, could hardly have omitted it, especially seeing he makes such a point of the presence of judas. had he been an inventor--here is just such a thing as he would have invented; and just here his record is barer than that of the rest--bare of the one incident which would have best helped out his own idea of the story. the consideration is suggestive. but why this exercise of at least repellent, which is half-destructive force, reminding us of milton's words-- yet half his strength he put not forth, but checked his thunder in mid volley? it may have had to do with the repentance of judas which followed. it may have had to do with the future history of the jewish men who composed that band. but i suspect the more immediate object of our lord was the safety of his disciples. as soon as the men who had gone backward and fallen to the ground, had risen and again advanced, he repeated the question--"whom seek ye?" "jesus of nazareth," they replied. "i am he," said the lord again, but added, now that they had felt his power--"if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way." st john's reference in respect of these words to a former saying of the lord, strengthens this conclusion. and there was no attempt even to lay hands on them. he had astonished and terrified his captors to gain of them his sole request--that his friends should go unhurt. there was work for them to do in the world; and he knew besides that they were not yet capable of enduring for his sake. at all events it was neither for vengeance nor for self-preservation that this gentlest form of destruction was manifested. i suspect it was but another shape of the virtue that went forth to heal. a few men fell to the ground that his disciples might have time to grow apostles, and redeem the world with the news of him and his father. for the sake of humanity the fig-tree withered; for the resurrection of the world, his captors fell: small hurt and mighty healing. daring to interpret the work of the father from the work of the son, i would humbly believe that all destruction is for creation--that, even for this, death alone is absolutely destroyed--that, namely, which stands in the way of the outgoing of the father's will, then only completing its creation when men are made holy. god does destroy; but not life. its outer forms yield that it may grow, and growing pass into higher embodiments, in which it can grow yet more. that alone will be destroyed which has the law of death in itself--namely, sin. sin is death, and death must be swallowed up of hell. life, that is god, is the heart of things, and destruction must be destroyed. for this victory endless _forms_ of life must yield;--even the _form_ of the life of the son of god himself must yield upon the cross, that the life might arise a life-giving spirit; that his own words might be fulfilled--"for if i depart not, the comforter will not come unto you." all spirit must rise victorious over form; and the form must die lest it harden to stone around the growing life. no form is or can be great enough to contain the truth which is its soul; for all truth is infinite being a thought of god. it is only in virtue of the flowing away of the form, that is death, and the ever gathering of new form behind, that is birth or embodiment, that any true revelation is possible. on what other terms shall the infinite embrace the finite but the terms of an endless change, an enduring growth, a recognition of the divine as for ever above and beyond, a forgetting of that which is behind, a reaching unto that which is before? therefore destruction itself is holy. it is as if the eternal said, "i will show myself; but think not to hold me in any form in which i come. the form is not i." the still small voice is ever reminding us that the lord is neither in the earthquake nor the wind nor the fire; but in the lowly heart that finds him everywhere. the material can cope with the eternal only in virtue of everlasting evanescence. xi. the resurrection. the works of the lord he himself represents as given him of the father: it matters little whether we speak of his resurrection as a miracle wrought by himself, or wrought in him by the father. if he was one with the father, the question cannot be argued, seeing that jesus apart from the father is not a conceivable idea. it is only natural that he who had power to call from the grave the body which had lain there for four days, should have power over the body he had himself laid down, to take it again with reanimating possession. for distinctly do i hold that he took again the same body in which he had walked about on the earth, suffered, and yielded unto death. in the same body--not merely the same form, in which he had taught them, he appeared again to his disciples, to give them the final consolations of a visible presence, before departing for the sake of a yet higher presence in the spirit of truth, a presence no longer limited by even the highest forms of the truth. it is not surprising that the records of such a marvel, grounded upon the testimony of men and women bewildered first with grief, and next all but distracted with the sudden inburst of a gladness too great for that equanimity which is indispensable to perfect observation, should not altogether correspond in the minutiae of detail. all knew that the lord had risen indeed: what matter whether some of them saw one or two angels in the tomb? the first who came saw one angel outside and another inside the sepulchre. one at a different time saw two inside. what wonder then that one of the records should say of them all, that they saw two angels? i do not care to set myself to the reconciliation of the differing reports. their trifling disagreement is to me even valuable from its truth to our human nature. all i care to do is to suggest to any one anxious to understand the records the following arrangement of facts. when mary magdalene found the tomb empty, not seeing, or heedless of the angel, she forsook her companions, and ran to the chief of the disciples to share the agony of this final loss. perhaps something might yet be done to rescue the precious form, and lay it aside with all futile honours. with peter and john she returned to the grave, whence, in the mean time, her former companions, having seen and conversed with the angel outside and the angel inside, had departed to find their friends. peter and john, having, the one entered, the other looked into the tomb, and seen only the folded garments of desertion, returned home, but mary lingered weeping by the place which was not now even the grave of the beloved, so utterly had not only he but the signs of him vanished. as she wept, she stooped down into the sepulchre. there sat the angels in holy contemplation, one at the head, the other at the feet where the body of jesus had lain. peter nor john had beheld them: to the eyes of mary as of the other women they were manifest. it is a lovely story that follows, full of marvel, as how should it not be? "woman, why weepest thou?" said the angels. "because they have taken away my lord, and i know not where they have laid him," answered mary, and turning away, tear-blinded, saw the gardener, as she thought. "woman, why weepest thou?" repeats the gardener. "whom seekest thou?" hopelessness had dulled every sense: not even a start at the sound of his voice! "sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and i will take him away." "mary!" "master!" "touch me not; for i am not yet ascended to my father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, i ascend unto my father and your father; and to my god and your god." she had the first sight of him. it would almost seem that, arrested by her misery, he had delayed his ascent, and shown himself sooner than his first intent. "touch me not, for i am not yet ascended." she was about to grasp him with the eager hands of reverent love: why did he refuse the touch? doubtless the tone of the words deprived them of any sting. doubtless the self-respect of the woman was in no way wounded by the master's recoil. for the rest, we know so little of the new conditions of his bodily nature, that nothing is ours beyond conjecture. it may be, for anything i know, that there were even physical reasons why she should not yet touch him; but my impression is that, after the hard work accomplished, and the form in which he had wrought and suffered resumed, he must have the father's embrace first, as after a long absence any man would seek first the arms of his dearest friend. it may well be objected to this notion, that he had never been absent from god--that in his heart he was at home with him continually. and yet the body with all its limitations, with all its partition-walls of separation, is god's, and there must be some way in which even _it_ can come into a willed relation with him to whom it is nearer even than to ourselves, for it is the offspring of his will, or as the prophets of old would say--the work of his hands. that which god has invented and made, which has its very origin in the depth of his thought, _can_ surely come nigh to god. therefore i think that in some way which we cannot understand, jesus would now seek the presence of the father; would, having done the work which he had given him to do, desire first of all to return in the body to him who had _sent_ him by giving him a body. hence although he might delay his return at the sound of the woman's grief, he would rather _she_ did not touch him first. if any one thinks this founded on too human a notion of the saviour, i would only reply that i suspect a great part of our irreligion springs from our disbelief in the humanity of god. there lie endless undiscovered treasures of grace. after he had once ascended to the father, he not only appeared to his disciples again and again, but their hands handled the word of life, and he ate in their presence. he had been to his father, and had returned that they might know him lifted above the grave and all that region in which death has power; that as the elder brother, free of the oppressions of humanity, but fulfilled of its tenderness, he might show himself captain of their salvation. upon the body he inhabited, death could no longer lay his hands, and from the vantage-ground he thus held, he could stretch down the arm of salvation to each and all. for in regard of this glorified body of jesus, we must note that it appeared and disappeared at the will of its owner; and it would seem also that other matter yielded and gave it way; yes, even that space itself was in some degree subjected to it. upon the first of these, the record is clear. if any man say he cannot believe it, my only answer is that i can. if he ask how it _could_ be, the nearest i can approach to an answer is to indicate the region in which it may be possible: the border-land where thought and matter meet is the region where all marvels and miracles are generated. the wisdom of this world can believe that matter generates mind: what seems to me the wisdom from above can believe that mind generates matter--that matter is but the manifest mind. on this supposition matter may well be subject to mind; much more, if jesus be the son of god, his own body must be subject to his will. i doubt, indeed, if the condition of any man is perfect before the body he inhabits is altogether obedient to his will--before, through his own absolute obedience to the father, the realm of his own rule is put under him perfectly. it may be objected that although this might be credible of the glorified body of even the human resurrection, it is hard to believe that the body which suffered and died on the cross could become thus plastic to the will of the indwelling spirit. but i do not see why that which was born of the spirit of the father, should not be so inter-penetrated and possessed by the spirit of the son, that, without the loss of one of its former faculties, it should be endowed with many added gifts of obedience; amongst the rest such as are indicated in the narrative before us. why was this miracle needful? perhaps, for one thing, that men should not limit him, or themselves in him, to the known forms of humanity; and for another, that the best hope might be given them of a life beyond the grave; that their instinctive desires in that direction might thus be infinitely developed and assured. i suspect, however, that it followed just as the natural consequence of all that preceded. if christ be risen, then is the grave of humanity itself empty. we have risen with him, and death has henceforth no dominion over us. of every dead man and woman it may be said: he--she--is not here, but is risen and gone before us. ever since the lord lay down in the tomb, and behold it was but a couch whence he arose refreshed, we may say of every brother: he is not dead but sleepeth. he too is alive and shall arise from his sleep. the way to the tomb may be hard, as it was for him; but we who look on, see the hardness and not the help; we see the suffering but not the sustaining: that is known only to the dying and god. they can tell us little of this, and nothing of the glad safety beyond. with any theory of the conditions of our resurrection, i have scarcely here to do. it is to me a matter of positively no interest whether or not, in any sense, the matter of our bodies shall be raised from the earth. it is enough that we shall possess forms capable of revealing ourselves and of bringing us into contact with god's other works; forms in which the idea, so blurred and broken in these, shall be carried out--remaining so like, that friends shall doubt not a moment of the identity, becoming so unlike, that the tears of recognition shall be all for the joy of the gain and the gratitude of the loss. not to believe in mutual recognition beyond, seems to me a far more reprehensible unbelief than that in the resurrection itself. i can well understand how a man should not believe in any life after death. i will confess that although probabilities are for it, _appearances_ are against it. but that a man, still more a woman, should believe in the resurrection of the very same body of jesus, who took pains that his friends should recognize him therein; that they should regard his resurrection as their one ground for the hope of their own uprising, and yet not believe that friend shall embrace friend in the mansions prepared for them, is to me astounding. such a shadowy resumption of life i should count unworthy of the name of resurrection. then indeed would the grave be victorious, not alone over the body, not alone over all which made the life of this world precious and by which we arose towards the divine--but so far victorious over the soul that henceforth it should be blind and deaf to what in virtue of loveliest memories would have added a new song to the praises of the father, a new glow to the love that had wanted but that to make it perfect. in truth i am ashamed of even combating such an essential falsehood. were it not that here and there a weak soul is paralysed by the presence of the monstrous lie, and we dare not allow sympathy to be swallowed up of even righteous disdain, a contemptuous denial would be enough. what seemed to the disciples the final acme of disappointment and grief, the vanishing of his body itself, was in reality the first sign of the dawn of an illimitable joy. he was not there because he had risen. xii. the transfiguration. i have judged it fitting to close this series of meditations with some thoughts on the transfiguration, believing the story to be as it were a window through which we gain a momentary glimpse of the region whence all miracles appear--a glimpse vague and dark for all the transfiguring light, for god himself is "by abundant clarity invisible." in the story we find a marvellous change, a lovely miracle, pass upon the form itself whence the miracles flowed, as if the pent-up grace wrought mightily upon the earthen vessel which contained it. our lord would seem to have repeatedly sought some hill at eventide for the solitude such a place alone could afford him. it must often have been impossible for him to find any other chamber in which to hold communion with his father undisturbed. this, i think, was one of such occasions. he took with him the favoured three, whom also he took apart from the rest in the garden of gethsemane, to retire even from them a little, that he might be alone with the father, yet know that his brothers were near him--the ocean of human need thus drawn upwards in an apex of perfect prayer towards the throne of the father. i think this, his one only material show, if we except the entry into jerusalem upon the ass, took place in the night. then the son of joseph the carpenter was crowned, not his head only with a crown placed thereon from without, but his whole person with a crown of light born in him and passing out from him. according to st luke he went up the mountain to pray, "but peter and they that were with him were _heavy with sleep_." st luke also says that "on the next day, when they were come down from the mountain," that miracle was performed which st matthew and st mark represent as done _immediately_ on the descent. from this it appears more than likely that the night was spent upon the mountain. st luke says that "the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering." st matthew says, "his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." st mark says, "his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them." st luke is alone in telling us that it was while he prayed that this change passed upon him. he became outwardly glorious from inward communion with his father. but we shall not attain to the might of the meaning, if we do not see what was the more immediate subject of his prayer. it is, i think, indicated in the fact, also recorded by st luke, that the talk of his heavenly visitors was "of his decease which he should accomplish at jerusalem." associate with this the fact that his talk with his disciples, as they came down the mountain, pointed in the same direction, and that all open report of the vision was to be withheld until he should have risen from the dead, and it will appear most likely that the master, oppressed with the thought of that which now drew very nigh, sought the comfort and sympathy of his father, praying in the prospect of his decease. let us observe then how, in heaving off the weight of this awful shadow by prayer, he did not grow calm and resigned alone, if he were ever other than such, but his faith broke forth so triumphant over the fear, that it shone from him in physical light. every cloud of sorrow or dread, touched with such a power of illumination, is itself changed into a glory. the radiance goes hand in hand with the coming decay and the three days' victory of death. it is as a foretaste of his resurrection, a putting on of his new glorified body for a moment while he was yet in the old body and the awful shadow yet between. it may be to something like this as taking place in other men that the apostle refers when he says: "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." that coming death was to be but as the overshadowing cloud, from which the glory should break anew and for ever. the transfiguration then was the divine defiance of the coming darkness. let us now speculate for a moment upon the relation of the spiritual and physical manifested in it. he became, i repeat, outwardly glorious from inward communion with his father. in like circumstance, the face of moses shone marvellously. and what wonder? what should make a man's face shine, if not the presence of the holy? if not communion with the father of his spirit? in the transfiguration of jesus we have, i think, just the perfect outcome of those natural results of which we have the first signs in moses--the full daylight, of which his shining face was as the dawn. thus, like the other miracles, i regard it as simply a rare manifestation of the perfect working of nature. who knows not that in moments of lofty emotion, in which self is for the time forgotten, the eyes shine, and the face is so transfigured that we are doubtful whether it be not in a degree absolutely luminous! i say once more, in the lord we find the perfecting of all the dull hunts of precious things which common humanity affords us. if so, what a glory must await every lowliest believer, since the communion of our elder brother with his father and our father, a communion for whose perfecting in us he came, caused not only his face to shine, but the dull garments he wore to become white as snow through the potency of the permeating light issuing from his whole person! the outer man shone with the delight of the inner man--for his father was with him--so that even his garments shared in the glory. such is what the presence of the father will do for every man. may i not add that the shining of the garments is a type of the glorification of everything human when brought into its true relations by and with the present god? keeping the same point of view, i turn now to the resurrection with which the whole fact is so closely associated:--i think the virtue of divine presence which thus broke in light from the body of jesus, is the same by which his risen body, half molten in power, was rendered plastic to the will of the indwelling spirit. what if this light were the healing agent of the bodies of men, as the deeper other light from which it sprung is the healing agent of themselves? are not the most powerful of the rays of light invisible to our vision? some will object that this is a too material view of life and its facts. i answer that the question is whether i use the material to interpret the spiritual, as i think i do, or to account for it, as i know i do not. in my theory, the spiritual _both_ explains and accounts for the material. if the notions we have of what we may call _material light_ render it the only fitting image to express the invisible truth, the being of god, there must be some closest tie between them--not of connection only, but of unity. such a fitness could not exist without such connection; except, indeed, there were one god of the natural and another of the supernatural, who yet were brothers, and thought in similar modes, and the one had to supplement the work of the other. the essential truth of god it must be that creates its own visual image in the sun that enlightens the world: when man who is the image of god is filled with the presence of the eternal, he too, in virtue of his divine nature thus for the moment ripened to glory, radiates light from his very person. where, when, or how the inner spiritual light passes into or generates outward physical light, who can tell? this border-land, this touching of what we call mind and matter, is the region of miracles--of material creation, i might have said, which is _the_ great--suspect, the _only_ miracle. but if matter be the outcome of spirit, and body and soul be one man, then, if the soul be radiant of truth, what can the body do but shine? i conjecture then, that truth, which is light in the soul, might not only cast out disease, which is darkness in the body, but change that body even, without the intervention of death, into the likeness of the body of jesus, capable of all that could be demanded of it. except by violence i do not think the body of jesus could have died. no physiologist can tell why man should die. i think a perfect soul would be capable of keeping its body alive. an imperfect one cannot fill it with light in every part--cannot thoroughly inform the brute matter with life. the transfiguration of jesus was but the visible outbreak of a life so strong as to be life-giving, life-restoring. the flesh it could melt away and evermore renew. such a body might well walk upon the stormiest waters. a body thus responsive to and interpenetrative of light, which is the visible life, could have no sentence of death in it. it would never have died. but i find myself in regions where i dare tread no further for the darkness of ignorance. i see many glimmers: they are too formless and uncertain. when or how the light died away, we are not told. my own fancy is that it went on shining but paling all the night upon the lonely mount, to vanish in the dawn of the new day. when he came down from the mountain the virtue that dwelt in him went forth no more in light to the eyes, but in healing to the poor torn frame of the epileptic boy. so he vanished at last from the eyes of his friends, only to draw nearer--with a more intense and healing presence--to their hearts and minds. even so come, lord jesus. supernatural religion: an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation. by walter richard cassels in three volumes: vol. ii. complete edition. carefully revised. london: longmans, greenland co., . pg editor's note: this file has been provided with an image of the original scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the html file. nearly every page in the text has many greek passages which have been indicated where they occur by [���] as have many complex tables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. some of the pages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is taken up with complex footnotes in english, greek and hebrew. the reader may click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page with the footnotes. �dw an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation part ii. chapter v. the clementines--the epistle to diognetus we must now as briefly as possible examine the evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name of "the clementines," and assuming, falsely of course,( ) to be the composition of the roman clement. the clementines are composed of three principal works, the homilies, recognitions, and a so-called epitome. the homilies, again, are prefaced by a pretended epistle addressed by the apostle peter to james, and another from clement. these homilies were only known in an imperfect form till , when dressel( ) published a complete greek text. of the recognitions we only possess a latin translation by rufinus (a.d. ). { } although there is much difference of opinion regarding the claims to priority of the homilies and recognitions, many critics assigning that place to the homilies,( ) whilst others assert the earlier origin of the recognitions,( ) all are agreed that the one is merely a version of the other, the former being embodied almost word for word in the latter, whilst the epitome is a blending of the other two, probably intended to purge them from heretical doctrine. these works, however, which are generally admitted to have emanated from the ebionitic party of the early church,( ) are supposed to be based upon older petrine writings, such as the "preaching of peter" [------], and the "travels of peter" [------].( ) { } it is not necessary for our purpose to go into any analysis of the character of the clementines. it will suffice to say that they almost entirely consist of discussions between the apostle peter and simon the magician regarding the identity of the true mosaic and christian religions. peter follows the magician from city to city for the purpose of exposing and refuting him, the one, in fact, representing apostolic doctrine and the other heresy, and in the course of these discussions occur the very numerous quotations of sayings of jesus and of christian history which we have to examine. the clementine recognitions, as we have already remarked, are only known to us through the latin translation of rufinus; and from a comparison of the evangelical quotations occurring in that work with the same in the homilies, it is evident that rufinus has assimilated them in the course of translation to the parallel passages of our gospels. it is admitted, therefore, that no argument regarding the source of the quotations can rightly be based upon the recognitions, and that work may, consequently, be entirely set aside,( ) and the clementine homilies alone need occupy our attention. we need scarcely remark that, unless the date at which these homilies were composed can be ascertained, their value as testimony for the existence of our synoptic gospels is seriously affected. the difficulty of arriving at a correct conclusion regarding this point, great under almost any circumstances, is of course increased by the fact that the work is altogether apocryphal, and most certainly not held by any one to have { } been written by the person whose name it bears. there is in fact nothing but internal evidence by which to fix the date, and that internal evidence is of a character which admits of very wide extension down the course of time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it cannot mount upwards. of external evidence there is almost none, and what little exists does not warrant an early date. origen, it is true, mentions [------],( ) which, it is conjectured, may either be the same work as the [------], or recognitions, translated by rufinus, or related to it, and epiphanius and others refer to [------];( ) but our clementine homilies are not mentioned by any writer before pseudo-athanasius.( ) the work, therefore, can at the best afford no substantial testimony to the antiquity and apostolic origin of our gospels. hilgenfeld, following in the steps of baur, arrives at the conclusion that the homilies are directed against the gnosticism of marcion (and also, as we shall hereafter see, against the apostle paul), and he, therefore, necessarily assigns to them a date subsequent to a.d. . as reuss, however, inquires: upon this ground, why should a still later date not be named, since even tertullian wrote vehemently against the same gnosis.( ) there can be little doubt that the author was a representative of ebionitic gnosticism, which had once been the purest form of primitive christianity, but later, through its own development, though still more through the rapid growth around it of paulinian doctrine, had { } assumed a position closely verging upon heresy. it is not necessary for us, however, to enter upon any exhaustive discussion of the date at which the clementines were written; it is sufficient to show that there is no certain ground upon which a decision can be based, and that even an approximate conjecture can scarcely be reasonably advanced. critics variously date the composition of the original recognitions from about the middle of the second century to the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them at least in the latter century.( ) they assign to the homilies an origin at different dates within a period commencing about the middle of the second century, and extending to a century later. in the homilies there are very numerous quotations { } of sayings of jesus and of gospel history, which are generally placed in the mouth of peter, or introduced with such formulae as: "the teacher said," "jesus said," "he said," "the prophet said," but in no case does the author name the source from which these sayings and quotations are derived. that he does, however, quote from a written source, and not from tradition, is clear from the use of such expressions as "in another place [------]( ) he has said," which refer not to other localities or circumstances, but another part of a written history.( ) there are in the clementine homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of sayings of jesus or references to his history, too many by far for us to examine in detail here; but, notwithstanding the number of these passages, so systematically do they vary, more or less, from the parallels in our canonical gospels, that, as in the case of justin, apologists are obliged to have recourse to the elastic explanation, already worn so threadbare, of "free quotation from memory" and "blending of passages" to account for the remarkable phenomena presented. it must, however, be evident that the necessity for such an apology at all shows the insufficiency of the evidence furnished by these quotations. de wette says: "the quotations of evangelical works and histories in the pseudo-clementine writings, from their nature free and inaccurate, permit only an uncertain conclusion to be { } drawn as to their written source."( ) critics have maintained very different and conflicting views regarding that source. apologists, of course, assert that the quotations in the homilies are taken from our gospels only.( ) others ascribe them to our gospels, with a supplementary apocryphal work: the gospel according to the hebrews, or the gospel according to peter.( ) some, whilst admitting a subsidiary use of some of our gospels, assert that the author of the homilies employs, in preference, the gospel according to peter;( ) whilst others, recognizing also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations with those of justin's, conclude that the author does not quote our gospels at all, but makes use of the gospel according to peter, or the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) evidence permitting of such divergent conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character. we may affirm, however, that few of those who are { } willing to admit the use of our synoptics by the author of the homilies along with other sources, make that concession on the strength of the absolute isolated evidence of the homilies themselves, but they are generally moved by antecedent views on the point. in an inquiry like that which we have undertaken, however, such easy and indifferent judgment would obviously be out of place, and the point we have to determine is not whether an author may have been acquainted with our gospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he actually was in possession of our present gospels and regarded them as authoritative. we have already mentioned that the author of the clementine homilies never names the source from which his quotations are derived. of these very numerous quotations we must again distinctly state that only two or three, of a very brief and fragmentary character, literally agree with our synoptics, whilst all the rest differ more or less widely from the parallel passages in those gospels. some of these quotations are repeated more than once with the same persistent and characteristic variations, and in several cases, as we have already seen, they agree more or less closely with quotations of justin from the memoirs of the apostles. others, again, have no parallels at all in our gospels, and even apologists are consequently compelled to admit the collateral use of an apocryphal gospel. as in the case of justin, therefore, the singular phenomenon is presented of a vast number of quotations of which only one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary to avail as evidence, perfectly agree with our gospels; whilst of the rest, which all vary more or less, some merely resemble combined passages of two gospels, others merely contain the sense, some { } present variations likewise found in other writers or in various parts of the homilies are repeatedly quoted with the same variations, and others are not found in our gospels at all. such phenomena cannot be fairly accounted for by any mere theory of imperfect memory or negligence. the systematic variation from our synoptics, variation proved by repetition not to be accidental, coupled with quotations which have no parallels at all in our gospels, more naturally point to the use of a different gospel. in no case can the homilies be accepted as furnishing evidence even of the existence of our gospels. as it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the quotations in the clementine homilies, we must content ourselves with this distinct statement of their character, and merely illustrate briefly the different classes of quotations, exhausting, however, those which literally agree with passages in the gospels. the most determined of recent apologists do not afford us an opportunity of testing the passages upon which they base their assertion of the use of our synoptics, for they simply assume that the author used them without producing instances.( ) the first quotation agreeing with a passage in our synoptics occurs in hom. iii. : "and he cried, saying: come unto me all ye that are weary," which agrees with the opening words of matt. xi. , but the phrase does teschendorf only devotes a dozen linos, with a note, to the clemontinos, and only in connection with our fourth gospel, which shall hero-after have our attention. wann wurden u. s. w., p. . in the same way canon westcott passes them over in a short paragraph, merely asserting the allusions to our gospels to be "generally admitted," and only directly referring to one supposed quotation from mark which we shall presently examine, and one which he affirms to be from the fourth gospel. on the canon, p. f. [in the th edition he has enlarged his remarks, p. ff.] { } not continue, and is followed by the explanation: "that is, who are seeking the truth and not finding it."( ) it is evident, that so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything.( ) the next passage occurs in hom. xviii. : "for isaiah said: i will open my mouth in parables, and i will utter things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."( ) now this passage, with a slightly different order of words, is found in matt. xiii. . after giving a series of parables, the author of the gospel says (v. ), "all these things spake jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them; (v. ) that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet (isaiah), saying: i will open my mouth in parables, &c." there are two peculiarities which must be pointed out in this passage. it is not found in isaiah, but in psalm lxxviii. ,( ) and it presents a variation from the version of the lxx. both the variation and the erroneous reference to isaiah, therefore, occur also in the homily. the first part of the sentence agrees with, but the latter part is quite different from, the greek of the lxx., which reads: "i will utter problems from the beginning," [------].( ) the psalm from which the quotation is really taken is, by its superscription, ascribed to asaph, who, in the septuagint version of ii. chronicles xxix. , is called a { } prophet.( ) it was, therefore, early asserted that the original reading of matthew was "asaph," instead of "isaiah." porphyry, in the third century, twitted christians with this erroneous ascription by their inspired evangelist to isaiah of a passage from a psalm, and reduced the fathers to great straits. eusebius, in his commentary on this verse of the psalm, attributes the insertion of the words, "by the prophet isaiah," to unintelligent copyists, and asserts that in accurate mss. the name is not added to the word prophet. jerome likewise ascribes the insertion of the name isaiah for that of asaph, which was originally written, to an ignorant scribe,( ) and in the commentary on the psalms, generally, though probably falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made that many copies of the gospel to that day had the name "isaiah," for which porphyry had reproached christians,( ) and the writer of the same commentary actually allows himself to make the assertion that asaph was found in all the old codices, but ignorant men had removed it.( ) the fact is, that the reading "asaph" for "isaiah" is not found in any extant ms., and, although "isaiah" has disappeared from all but a few obscure codices, it cannot be denied that the name anciently stood in the text.( ) in the sinaitic codex, which is probably the earliest ms. extant, and which is assigned to the fourth century, "the prophet _isaiah_" stands in the text by the first hand, but is erased by the second (b). { } the quotation in the homily, however, is clearly not from our gospel. it is introduced by the words "for isaiah says:" and the context is so different from that in matthew, that it seems most improbable that the author of the homily could have had the passage suggested to him by the gospel. it occurs in a discussion between simon the magician and peter. the former undertakes to prove that the maker of the world is not the highest god, and amongst other arguments he advances the passage: "no man knew the father, &c.," to show that the father had remained concealed from the patriarchs, &c., until revealed by the son, and in reply to peter he retorts, that if the supposition that the patriarchs were not deemed worthy to know the father was unjust, the christian teacher was himself to blame, who said: "i thank thee, lord of heaven and earth, that what was concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to suckling babes." peter argues that in the statement of jesus: "no man knew the father, &c.," he cannot be considered to indicate another god and father from him who made the world, and he continues: "for the concealed things of which he spoke may be those of the creator himself; for isaiah says: 'i will open my mouth, &c.' do you admit, therefore, that the prophet was not ignorant of the things concealed,"( ) and so on. there is absolutely nothing in this argument to indicate that the passage was suggested by the gospel, but, on the contrary, it is used in a totally different way, and is quoted not as an evangelical text, but as a saying from the old testament, and treated in connection with the prophet himself, and not with its supposed fulfilment in jesus. it may be remarked, that in the corresponding part of { } the recognitions, whether that work be of older or more recent date, the passage does not occur at all. now, although it is impossible to say how and where this erroneous reference to a passage of the old testament first occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it originated in our first synoptic, and as little for asserting that its occurrence in the clementine homilies, with so different a context and object, involves the conclusion that their author derived it from the gospel, and not from the old testament or some other source. on the contrary, the peculiar argument based upon it in the homilies suggests a different origin, and it is very probable that the passage, with its erroneous reference, was derived by both from another and common source. another passage is a phrase from the "lord's prayer," which occurs in hom. xix. : "but also in the prayer which he commended to us, we have it said: deliver us from the evil one" [------]. it need scarcely be said, however, that few gospels can have been composed without including this prayer, and the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates nothing more than the mere fact, that the author of the homilies was acquainted with one of the most universally known lessons of jesus, or made use of a gospel which contained it. there would have been cause for wonder had he been ignorant of it. the only other passage which agrees literally with our gospels is also a mere fragment from the parable of the talents, and when the other references to the same parable are added, it is evident that the quotation is not from our gospels. in hom. iii. , the address to the good servant is introduced: "well done, good and faithful servant" [------], which agrees { } with the words in matt. xxv. . the allusion to the parable of the talents in the context is perfectly clear, and the passage occurs in an address of the apostle peter to overcome the modest scruples of zaccheus, the former publican, who has been selected by peter as his successor in the church of caesarea when he is about to leave in pursuit of simon the magician. anticipating the possibility of his hesitating to accept the office, peter, in an earlier part of his address, however, makes fuller allusions to the same parable of the talents, which we must contrast with the parallel in the first synoptic. "but if any of those present, having the ability to instruct the ignorance of men, shrink back from it, considering only his own ease, then let him expect to hear:" [--table--] { } the homily does not end here, however, but continues in words not found in our gospels at all: "and reasonably: 'for,' he says, 'it is thine, o man, to put my words as silver with exchangers, and to prove them as money/"( ) this passage is very analogous to another saying of jesus, frequently quoted from an apocryphal gospel, by the author of the homilies, to which we shall hereafter more particularly refer, but here merely point out: "be ye approved money-changers" [------].( ) the variations from the parallel passages in the first and third gospels, the peculiar application of the parable to the _words_ of jesus, and the addition of a saying not found in our gospels, warrant us in denying that the quotations we are considering can be appropriated by our canonical gospels, and, on the contrary, give good reason for the conclusion, that the author derived his knowledge of the parable from another source. there is no other quotation in the clementine homilies which literally agrees with our gospels, and it is difficult, without incurring the charge of partial selection, to illustrate the systematic variation in such very numerous passages as occur in these writings. it would be tedious and unnecessary to repeat the test applied to the quotations of justin, and give in detail the passages from the sermon on the mount which are found in the homilies. some of these will come before us presently, but with regard to the whole, which are not less than fifty, we may broadly and positively state that they all more or less differ from our gospels. to take the { } severest test, however, we shall compare those further passages which are specially adduced as most closely following our gospels, and neglect the vast majority which most widely differ from them. in addition to the passages which we have already examined, credner( ) points out the following. the first is from hom. xix. .( ) "if satan cast out satan he is divided against himself: how then can his kingdom stand?" in the first part of this sentence, the homily reads, [------] for the [------] of the first gospel, and the last phrase in each is as follows:-- [------] the third gospel differs from the first as the homily does from both. the next passage is from hom. xix. .s "for thus, said our father, who was without deceit: out of abundance of heart mouth speaketh." the greek compared with that of matt. xii. . [------] the form of the homily is much more proverbial. the next passage occurs in hom. iii. : "every plant which the heavenly father did not plant shall be rooted up." this agrees with the parallel in matt. xv. , with the important exception, that although in the mouth of jesus, "_the_ heavenly father" is substituted for the "_my_ heavenly father" of the gospel. the last passage pointed out by credner, is from hom. viii. : "but also 'many,' he said, 'called, but few chosen;'" which may be compared with matt. xx. , &c. [------] { } we have already fully discussed this passage of the gospel in connection with the "epistle of barnabas,"[ ] and need not say more here. the variations in these passages, it may be argued, are not very important. certainly, if they were the exceptional variations amongst a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with parallels in our gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such divergences a conclusion that they were derived from a different source. when it is considered, however, that the very reverse is the case, and that these are passages selected for their closer agreement out of a multitude of others either more decidedly differing from our gospels or not found in them at all, the case entirely changes, and variations being the rule instead of the exception, these, however slight, become evidence of the use of a gospel different from ours. as an illustration of the importance of slight variations in connection with the question as to the source from which quotations are derived, the following may at random be pointed out. the passage "see thou say nothing to any man, but go thy way, show thyself to the priest" [------] occurring in a work like the homilies would, supposing our second gospel no longer extant, be referred to matt viii. , with which it entirely agrees with the exception of its containing the one extra word [------]. it is however actually taken from mark i. , and not from the first gospel. then again, supposing that our first gospel had shared the fate of so many others of the [------] of luke, and in some early work the following passage were found: "a prophet is not without honour except in his own country { } and in his own house" [------]t this passage would undoubtedly be claimed by apologists as a quotation from mark vi. , and as proving the existence and use of that gospel. the omission of the words "and among his own kin" [------] would at first be explained as mere abbreviation, or defect of memory, but on the discovery that part or all of these words are omitted from some mss., that for instance the phrase is erased from the oldest manuscript known, the cod. sinaiticus, the derivation from the second gospel would be considered as established. the author notwithstanding might never have seen that gospel, for the quotation is taken from matt. xiii. .( ) we have already quoted the opinion of de wette as to the inconclusive nature of the deductions to be drawn from the quotations in the pseudo-clementine writings regarding their source, but in pursuance of the plan we have adopted we shall now examine the passages which he cites as most nearly agreeing with our gospels.( ) the first of these occurs in hom. iii. : "the scribes and the pharisees sit upon moses' seat; all things therefore, whatsoever they speak to you, hear them," which is compared with matt, xxiii. , : "the scribes and the pharisees sit upon moses' seat; all things therefore, whatsoever they say to you, do and observe." we subjoin the greek of the latter half of these passages. { } that the variation in the homily is deliberate and derived from the gospel used by the author is clear from the continuation: "hear _them_ [------], he said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom, which is knowledge, which alone is able to open the gate of life, through which alone is the entrance to eternal life. but verily, he says: they possess the key indeed, but to those who wish to enter in they do not grant it."( ) the [------] is here emphatically repeated, and the further quotation and reference to the denunciation of the scribes and pharisees continues to differ distinctly from the account both in our first and third gospels. the passage in matt, xxiii. , reads: "but woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye go not in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."( ) the parallel in luke xi. is not closer. there the passage regarding moses' seat is altogether wanting, and in ver. , where the greatest similarity exists, the "lawyers" instead of the "scribes and pharisees" are addressed. the verse reads: "woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."( ) the first gospel has not the direct image of the key at all: the scribes and pharisees "shut the kingdom of { } heaven;" the third has "the key of knowledge" [------] taken away by the lawyers, and not by the scribes and pharisees, whilst the gospel of the homilies has the key of the kingdom [------], and explains that this key is knowledge [------]. it is apparent that the first gospel uses an expression more direct than the others, whilst the third gospel explains it, but the gospel of the homilies has in all probability the simpler original words: the "key of the kingdom," which both of the others have altered for the purpose of more immediate clearness. in any case it is certain that the passage does not agree with our gospel.( ) the next quotation referred to by de wette is in hom. iii. : "and also that he said: 'i am not come to destroy the law.... the heaven and the earth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law.'" this is compared with matt. v. , :( ) "think not that i am come to destroy the law or the prophets: i am not come to destroy but to fulfil, (v. ) for verily i say unto you: till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." the greek of both passages reads as follows:-- [------] { } that the omissions and variations in this passage are not accidental is proved by the fact that the same quotation occurs again literally in the epistle from peter( ) which is prefixed to the homilies in which the [------] is repeated, and the sentence closes at the same point the author in that place adds: "this he said that all might be fulfilled" [------]. hilgenfeld considers this epistle of much more early date than the homilies, and that this agreement bespeaks a particular text.( ) the quotation does not agree with our gospels, and must be assigned to another source. the next passage pointed out by de wette is the erroneous quotation from isaiah which we have already examined.( ) that which follows is found in hom. viii. : "for on this account our jesus himself said to one who frequently called him lord, yet did nothing which he commanded: why dost thou say to me lord, lord, and doest not the things which i say?" this is compared with luke vi. :( ) "but why call ye me lord, lord, and do not the things which i say?" [------] this passage differs from our gospels in having the second person singular instead of the plural, and in substituting [------] for [------] in the first phrase. the homily, moreover, in accordance with the use of the second person singular, distinctly states that the saying was addressed to a person who frequently called jesus "lord," whereas in the gospels it forms part of the sermon on the mount with a totally impersonal application to the multitude. { } the next passage referred to by de wette is in hom. xix. : "and he declared that he saw the evil one as lightning fall from heaven." this is compared with luke x. , which has no parallel in the other gospels: "and he said to them, i beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven." [------] the substitution of [-------] for [-------], had he found the latter in his gospel, would be all the more remarkable from the fact that the author of the homilies has just before quoted the saying "if satan cast out satan,"( ) &c. and he continues in the above words to show that satan had been cast out, so that the evidence would have been strengthened by the retention of the word in luke had he quoted that gospel. the variations, however, indicate that he quoted from another source.( ) the next passage pointed out by de wette likewise finds a parallel only in the third gospel. it occurs in hom. ix. : "nevertheless, though all demons with all the diseases flee before you, in this only is not to be your rejoicing, but in that, through grace, your names, as of the ever-living, are recorded in heaven." this is compared with luke x. : "notwithstanding, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rejoice that your names are written in the heavens." [------] { } the differences between these two passages are too great and the peculiarities of the homily too marked to require any argument to demonstrate that the quotation cannot be successfully claimed by our third gospel. on the contrary, as one of so many other passages systematically varying from the canonical gospels, it must rather be assigned to another source. de wette says: "a few others (quotations) presuppose (voraussetzen) the gospel of mark,"( ) and he gives them. the first occurs in hom. ii. : "there is a certain justa( ) amongst us, a syrophoenician, a canaantte by race, whose daughter was affected by a sore disease, and who came to our lord crying out and supplicating that he would heal her daughter. but he being also asked by us, said: 'it is not meet to heal the gentiles who are like dogs from their using different meats and practices, whilst the table in the kingdom has been granted to the sons of israel.' but she, hearing this and exchanging her former manner of life for that of the sons of the kingdom, in order that she might, like a dog, partake of the crumbs falling from that same table, obtained, as she desired, healing for her daughter."( ) this is compared with mark vii. -- ,( ) as it is the only gospel which calls the woman a syrophoenician. the homily, however, not only calls her so, a very unimportant point, but gives her name as "justa." { } if, therefore, it be argued that the mention of her nationality supposes that the author found the fact in his gospel, and that as we know no other but mark( ) which gives that information, that he therefore derived it from our second gospel, the additional mention of the name of "justa" on the same grounds necessarily points to the use of a gospel which likewise contained it, which our gospel does not. nothing can be more decided than the variation in language throughout this whole passage from the account in mark, and the reply of jesus is quite foreign to our gospels. in mark (vii. ) the daughter has "an unclean spirit" [------]; in matthew (xv. ) she is "grievously possessed by a devil" [------], but in the homily she is "affected by a sore disease" [------]. the second gospel knows nothing of any intercession on the part of the disciples, but matthew has: "and the disciples came and besought him [------] saying: 'send her away, for she crieth after us,'"( ) whilst the homily has merely "being also asked by us," [------] in the sense of intercession in her favour. the second gospel gives the reply of jesus as follows: "let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs. and she answered and said unto him: 'yea, lord, for the dogs also eat under the table of the crumbs of the children. and he said unto her: for this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter."( ) the nature of the reply of the woman is, { } in the gospels, the reason given for granting her request; but in the homily the woman's conversion to judaism,( ) that is to say judeo-christianity, is prominently advanced as the cause of her successful pleading. it is certain from the whole character of this passage, the variation of the language, and the reply of jesus which is not in our gospels at all, that the narrative cannot rightly be assigned to them, but the more reasonable inference is that it was derived from another source.( ) the last of de wette's( ) passages is from hom. iii. : "hear, o israel; the lord thy( ) god is one lord." this is a quotation from deuteronomy vi. , which is likewise quoted in the second gospel, xii. , in reply to the question, "which is the first commandment of all? jesus answered: the first is, hear, o israel; the lord our god is one lord, and thou shalt love the lord thy god," &c. &c. in the homily, however, the quotation is made in a totally different connection, for there is no question of commandments at all, but a clear statement of the circumstances under which the passage was used, which excludes the idea that this quotation was derived from mark xii. . the context in the homily is as follows: "but to those who were beguiled to imagine many gods as the scriptures say, he said: hear, o israel," &c, &c.( ) there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the gospels; but, on the contrary, the question is put by one of the scribes in mark to whom jesus says: "thou art not far from the kingdom of god." the quotation, { } therefore, beyond doubt, cannot be legitimately appropriated by the second synoptic, but may with much greater probability be assigned to a different gospel. we may here refer to the passage, the only one pointed out by him in connection with the synoptics, the discovery of which canon westcott affirms, "has removed the doubts which had long been raised about those (allusions) to st. mark."( ) the discovery referred to is that of the codex ottobonianus by dressel, which contains the concluding part of the homilies, and which was first published by him in . canon westcott says: "though st mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is repeated verbally in the concluding part of the th homily."( ) the passage is as follows: hom. xix. : "wherefore also he explained to his disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens." this is compared with mark iv. .... "and privately to his own disciples, he explained all things." [------] we have only a few words to add to complete the whole of dr. westcott's remarks upon the subject. he adds after the quotation: "this is the only place where [------] occurs in the gospels."( ) we may, however, point out that it occurs also in acts xix. and peter i. . it is upon the coincidence of this word that { } canon westcott rests his argument that this passage is a reference to mark. nothing, however, could be more untenable than such a conclusion from such an indication. the phrase in the homily presents a very marked variation from the passage in mark. the "all things" [------] of the gospel, reads: "the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens" [------] in the homily. the passage in mark iv. , to which dr. westcott does not refer, reads [------]. there is one very important matter, however, which our apologist has omitted to point out, and which, it seems to us, decides the case--the context in the homily. the chapter commences thus: "and peter said: we remember that our lord and teacher, as commanding, said to us: 'guard the mysteries for me, and the sons of my house.' wherefore also he explained to his disciples privately," &c.:(l) and then comes our passage. now, here is a command of jesus, in immediate connection with which the phrase before us is quoted, which does not appear in our gospels at all, and which clearly establishes the use of a different source. the phrase itself which differs from mark, as we have seen, may with all right be referred to the same unknown gospel. it must be borne in mind that all the quotations which we have hitherto examined are those which have been selected as most closely approximating to passages in our gospels. space forbids our giving illustrations of the vast number which so much more widely differ from parallel texts in the synoptics. we shall confine { } ourselves to pointing out in the briefest possible manner some of the passages which are persistent in their variations or recall similar passages in the memoirs of justin. the first of these is the injunction in hom. iii. : "let your yea be yea, your nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the evil one." the same saying is repeated in hom. xix. with the sole addition of "and." we subjoin the greek of these, together with that of the gospel and justin with which the homilies agree. [------] as we have already discussed this passage( ) we need not repeat our remarks here. that this passage comes from a source different from our gospels is rendered still more probable by the quotation in hom. xix. being preceded by another which has no parallel at all in our gospels. "and elsewhere he said, 'he who sowed the bad seed is the devil' [------]( ): and again: 'give no pretext to the evil one.'( ) [------]. but in exhorting he prescribes: 'let your yea be yea.'" &c. the first of these phrases differs markedly from our gospels; the second is not in them at all; the third, which we are considering, differs likewise in an important degree in common with justin's quotation, and there is every reason for supposing that the whole were derived from the same unknown source.( ) in the same homily, xix. , there occurs also the passage which exhibits variations likewise found in justin, which we have already examined,( ) and now { } merely point out: "begone into the darkness without, which the father hath prepared for the devil and his angels."( ) the quotation in justin (dial. ) agrees exactly with this, with the exception that justin has [------] instead of [------], which is not important, whilst the agreement in the marked variation from the parallel in the first gospel establishes the probability of a common source different from ours.( ) we have also already( ) referred to the passage in hom. xvii. . "no one knew [------] the father but the son, even as no one knoweth the son but the father and those to whom the son is minded to reveal him." this quotation differs from matt. xi. in form, in language, and in meaning, but agrees with justin's reading of the same text, and as we have shown the use of the aorist here, and the transposition of the order, were characteristics of gospels used by gnostics and other parties in the early church, and the passage with these variations was regarded by them as the basis of some of their leading doctrines.( ) that the variation is not accidental, but a deliberate quotation from a written source, is proved by this, and by the circumstance that the author of the homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same form.( ) it is unreasonable to suppose that the quotations in these homilies are so systematically and consistently erroneous, and not only can they not, from their actual variations, be legitimately referred to the synoptics exclusively, but, considering all the circumstances, the { } only natural conclusion is that they are derived from a source different from our gospels.( ) another passage occurs in hom. iii. : "wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the scriptures; and on this account ye are ignorant of the power of god." this is compared with mark xii. :( ) "do ye not therefore err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of god?" the very same quotation is made both in hom. ii. and xviii. , and in each case in which the passage is introduced it is in connection with the assertion that there are true and false scriptures, and that as there are in the scriptures some true sayings and some false, jesus by this saying showed to those who erred by reason of the false the cause of their error. there can scarcely be a doubt that the author of the homilies quotes this passage from a gospel different from ours, and this is demonstrated both by the important variation from our text and also by its consistent repetition, and by the context in which it stands.( ) upon each occasion, also, that the author of the homilies quotes the foregoing passage he likewise quotes another saying of jesus which is foreign to our gospels: "be ye approved money-changers," [------].( ) the saying is thrice quoted without { } variation, and each time, together with the preceding passage, it refers to the necessity of discrimination between true and false sayings in the scriptures, as for instance: "and peter said: if, therefore, of the scriptures some are true and some are false, our teacher rightly said: 'be ye approved money-changers,' as in the scriptures there are some approved sayings and some spurious."( ) this is one of the best known of the apocryphal sayings of jesus, and it is quoted by nearly all the fathers,( ) by many as from holy scripture, and by some ascribed to the gospel of the nazarenes, or the gospel according to the hebrews. there can be no question here that the author quotes an apocryphal gospel.( ) there is, in immediate connection with both the preceding passages, another saying of jesus quoted which is not found in our gospels: "why do ye not discern the good reason of the scriptures?" "[------]; "( ) this passage also comes from a gospel different from ours,( ) and the connection and sequence of these quotations is very significant. one further illustration, and we have done. we find the following in hom. iii. : "and to those who ( ) think that god tempts, as the scriptures say, he said: 'the evil one is the tempter,' who also tempted himself. "l this short saying is not found in our gospels. it probably occurred in the gospel of the homilies in connection with the temptation of jesus. it is not improbable that the writer of the epistle of james, who shows acquaintance with a gospel different from ours,( ) also knew this saying.( ) we are here again directed to the ebionite gospel. certainly the quotation is derived from a source different from our gospels.( ) these illustrations of the evangelical quotations in the clementine homilies give but an imperfect impression of the character of the extremely numerous passages which occur in the work. we have selected for our examination the quotations which have been specially cited by critics as closest to parallels in our gospels, and have thus submitted the question to the test which is most favourable to the claims of our synoptics. space forbids our adequately showing the much wider divergence which exists in the great majority of cases between them and the quotations in the homilies. to sum up the case: out of more than a hundred of these quotations only four brief and fragmentary phrases really agree with parallels in our synoptics, and these, we have shown, are either not used in the same context as in our gospels or are of a nature far from special to them. of the rest, all without exception systematically vary more or less from our gospels, and many in their variations agree with similar quotations in other writers, { } or on repeated quotation always present the same peculiarities, whilst others, professed to be direct quotations of sayings of jesus, have no parallels in our gospels at all. upon the hypothesis that the author made use of our gospels, such systematic divergence would be perfectly unintelligible and astounding. on the other hand, it must be remembered that the agreement of a few passages with parallels in our gospels cannot prove anything. the only extraordinary circumstance is that, even using a totally different source, there should not have been a greater agreement with our synoptics. but for the universal inaccuracy of the human mind, every important historical saying, having obviously only one distinct original form, would in all truthful histories have been reported in that one unvarying form. the nature of the quotations in the clementine homilies leads to the inevitable conclusion that their author derived them from a gospel different from ours; at least, since the source of these quotations is never named throughout the work, and there is not the faintest direct indication of our gospels, the clementine homilies cannot be considered witnesses of any value as to the origin and authenticity of the canonical gospels. that this can be said of a work written a century and a half after the establishment of christianity, and abounding with quotations of the discourses of jesus, is in itself singularly suggestive. it is scarcely necessary to add that the author of the homilies has no idea whatever of any canonical writings but those of the old testament, though even with regard to these some of our quotations have shown that he held peculiar views, and believed that they contained spurious elements. there is no reference in the { } homilies to any of the epistles of the new testament.( ) one of the most striking points in this work, on the other hand, is its determined animosity against the apostle paul. we have seen that a strong anti-pauline tendency was exhibited by many of the fathers, who, like the author of the homilies, made use of judeo-christian gospels different from ours. in this work, however, the antagonism against the "apostle of the gentiles" assumes a tone of peculiar virulence. there cannot be a doubt that the apostle paul is attacked in it, as the great enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of simon the magician,( ) whom peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. he is robbed of his title of "apostle of the gentiles," which, together with the honour of founding the church of antioch, of laodicaæ, and of rome, is ascribed to peter. all that opposition to paul which is implied in the epistle to the galatians and elsewhere( ) is here realized and exaggerated, and { } the personal difference with peter to which paul refers( ) is widened into the most bitter animosity. in the epistle of peter to james which is prefixed to the homilies, peter says, in allusion to paul: "for some among the gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and accepted certain lawless and foolish teaching of the hostile man."( ) first expounding a doctrine of duality, as heaven and earth, day and night, life and death,( ) peter asserts that in nature the greater things come first, but amongst men the opposite is the case, and the first is worse and the second better.( ) he then says to clement that it is easy according to this order to discern to what class simon (paul) belongs, "who came before me to the gentiles, and to which i belong who have come after him, and have followed him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as health upon disease."( ) he continues: "if he had been known he would not have been believed, but now, not being known, he is wrongly believed; and though by his acts he is a hater, he has been loved; and although an enemy, he has been welcomed as a friend; and though he is death, he has been desired as a saviour; and though fire, esteemed as light; and though a deceiver, he is listened to as speaking the truth."( ) there is much more of this acrimonious abuse put into the mouth of peter.( ) the indications that it is paul who is really attacked under the name of simon are much too clear to admit of doubt. in hom. xi. , peter, warning the church against false { } teachers, says: "he who hath sent us, our lord and prophet, declared to us that the evil one.... announced that he would send from amongst his followers apostles( ) to deceive. therefore, above all remember to avoid every apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who first does not accurately compare his teaching with that of james called the brother of my lord, and to whom was confided the ordering of the church of the hebrews in jerusalem," &c., lest this evil one should send a false preacher to them, "as he has sent to us simon preaching a counterfeit of truth in the name of our lord and disseminating error."( ) further on he speaks more plainly still. simon maintains that he has a truer appreciation of the doctrines and teaching of jesus because he has received his inspiration by supernatural vision, and not merely by the common experience of the senses,( ) and peter replies: "if, therefore, our jesus indeed was seen in a vision, was known by thee, and conversed with thee, it was only as one angry with an adversary.... but can any one through a vision be made wise to teach? and if thou sayest: 'it is possible,' then wherefore did the teacher remain and discourse for a whole year to us who were awake? and how can we believe thy story that he was seen by thee? and how could he have been seen by thee when thy thoughts are contrary to his teaching? but if seen and taught by him for a single hour thou becamest an apostle:( ) preach his words, interpret his sayings, love his { } apostles, oppose not me who consorted with him. for thou hast directly withstood me who am a firm rock, the foundation of the church. if thou hadst not been an adversary thou wouldst not have calumniated me, thou wouldst not have reviled my teaching in order that, when declaring what i have myself heard from the lord. i might not be believed, as though i were condemned.... but if thou callest me condemned, thou speakest against god who revealed christ to me,'"( ) &c. this last phrase: "if thou callest me condemned" [------] is an evident allusion to galat. ii. ii: "i withstood him to the face, because he was condemned" [------]. we have digressed to a greater extent than we intended, but it is not unimportant to show the general character and tendency of the work we have been examining. the clementine homilies,--written perhaps about the end of the second century, which never name nor indicate any gospel as the source of the author's knowledge of evangelical history, whose quotations of sayings of jesus, numerous as they are, systematically differ from the parallel passages of our synoptics, or are altogether foreign to them, which denounce the apostle paul as an impostor, enemy of the faith, and disseminator of false doctrine, and therefore repudiate his epistles, at the same time equally ignoring all the other writings of the new testament,--can scarcely be considered as giving much support to any theory of the early formation of the new testament canon, or as affording evidence even of the existence of its separate books. { } . among the writings which used formerly to be ascribed to justin martyr, and to be published along with his genuine works, is the short composition commonly known as the "epistle to diognetus." the ascription of this composition to justin arose solely from the fact that in the only known ms. of the letter there is an inscription [------] which, from its connection, was referred to justin.( ) the style and contents of the work, however, soon convinced critics that it could not possibly be written by justin,( ) and although it has been ascribed by various isolated writers to apollos, clement, marcion, quadratus, and others, none of these guesses have been seriously supported, and critics are almost universally agreed in confessing that the author of the epistle is entirely unknown. such being the case, it need scarcely be said that the difficulty of assigning a date to the work with any degree of certainty is extreme, if it be not absolutely impossible to do so. this difficulty, however, is increased by several circumstances. the first and most important of these is the fact that the epistle to diognetus is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient { } writer, and consequently there is no external evidence whatever to indicate the period of its composition.( ) moreover, it is not only anonymous but incomplete, or, at least, as we have it, not the work of a single writer. at the end of chapter x. a break is indicated, and the two concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and later hand.( ) it is not singular, therefore, that there exists a wide difference of opinion as to the date of the first ten chapters, although all agree regarding the later composition of the concluding portion. it is assigned by critics to various periods ranging from about the end of the first quarter of the second century to the end of the third century or later,( ) whilst some denounce it as a mere modern forgery.( ) nothing can be more insecure in one { } direction than the date of a work derived alone from internal evidence. allusions to actual occurrences may with certainty prove that a work could only have been written after they had taken place. the mere absence of later indications in an anonymous epistle only found in a single ms. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which may have been, and probably was, written expressly in imitation of early christian feeling, cannot furnish any solid basis for an early date. it must be evident that the determination of the date of this epistle cannot therefore be regarded as otherwise than doubtful and arbitrary. it is certain that the purity of its greek and the elegance of its style distinguish it from all other christian works of the period to which so many assign it.( ) the epistle to diognetus, however, does not furnish any evidence even of the existence of our synoptics, for it is admitted that it does not contain a single direct quotation from any evangelical work.( )we shall hereafter have to refer to this epistle in connection with the fourth gospel, but in the meantime it may be well to add that in chapter xii., one of those, it will be remembered, which are admitted to be of later date, a brief quotation is made from cor. viii. , introduced merely by the words, [------]. chapter vi. basilides--valentinus. we must now turn back to an earlier period, and consider any evidence regarding the synoptic gospels which may be furnished by the so-called heretical writers of the second century. the first of these who claims our attention is basilides, the founder of a system of gnosticism, who lived in alexandria about the year of our era.( ) with the exception of a very few brief fragments,( ) none of the writings of this gnostic have been preserved, and all our information regarding them is, therefore, derived at second-hand from ecclesiastical writers opposed to him and his doctrines; and their statements, especially where acquaintance with, and the use of, the new testament scriptures are assumed, must be received with very great caution. the uncritical and inaccurate character of the fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to be misled by foregone devout conclusions. eusebius states that agrippa castor, who had written a refutation of the doctrines of basilides: "says that he had composed twenty-four books upon the gospel."( ) { } this is interpreted by tischendorf, without argument, and in a most arbitrary and erroneous manner, to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four canonical gospels;( ) a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded. this is, however, almost surpassed by the treatment of canon westcott, who writes regarding basilides: "it appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a 'life of christ' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or 'the philosophy of christianity,( )--but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them as scripture. for, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony, of basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. in the few pages of his writings which remain there are certain references to the gospels of st. matthew, st. luke, and st. john,"( ) &c. now in making, in such a manner, these assertions: in totally ignoring the whole of the discussion with regard to the supposed quotations of basilides in the work commonly ascribed to hippolytus and the adverse results of learned criticism: in the unqualified assertions thus made and the absence either of explanation of the facts or the reasons for the conclusion: this statement must be condemned as only calculated to mislead readers who must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case. we know from the evidence of antiquity that basilides made use of a gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after his own name.( ) an attempt has these names are pure inventions of dr. westcott's fancy, of course. on the canon, p. f. [since these remarks were first made, dr. westcott has somewhat enlarged his account of basilides, but we still consider that his treatment of the subject is deceptive and incomplete.] { } been made to explain this by suggesting that perhaps the work mentioned by agrippa castor may have been mistaken for a gospel;( ) but the fragments of that work which are still extant( ) are of a character which precludes the possibility that any writing of which they formed a part could have been considered a gospel.( ) various opinions have been expressed as to the exact nature of the gospel of basilides. neander affirmed it to be the gospel according to the hebrews which he brought from syria to egypt;( ) whilst schneckenburger held it to be the gospel according to the egyptians.( ) others believe it to have at least been based upon one or other of these gospels.( ) there seems most reason for the hypothesis that it was a form of the gospel according to the hebrews, which was so generally in use. returning to the passage already quoted, in which eusebius states, on the authority of agrippa castor, whose works are no longer extant, that basilides had composed a work in twenty-four books on the gospel { } [------], and to the unwarrantable inference that this must have been a work on our four gospels, we must add that, so far from deriving his doctrines from our gospels or other new testament writings, or acknowledging their authority, basilides professed that he received his knowledge of the truth from glaucias, "the interpreter of peter," whose disciple he claimed to be,( ) and thus practically sets gospels aside and prefers tradition.( ) basilides also claimed to have received from a certain matthias the report of private discourses which he had heard from the saviour for his special instruction.( ) agrippa castor further stated, according to eusebius, that in his [------] basilides named for himself, as prophets, barcabbas and barcoph (parchor( )), as well as invented others who never existed, and claimed their authority for his doctrines.( ) with regard to all this canon westcott writes: "since basilides lived on the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of christian doctrine besides the canonical books. the belief in divine inspiration was still fresh and real,"( ) &c. it is apparent, however, that basilides, in basing his doctrines upon tradition and { } upon these apocryphal books as inspired, and in having a special gospel called after his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as the exponent of his ideas of christian truth, completely ignores the canonical gospels, and not only does not offer any evidence for their existence, but proves, on the contrary, that he did not recognize any such works as of authority. there is no ground, therefore, for tischendorfs assumption that the commentary of basilides "on the gospel" was written upon our gospels, but that idea is negatived in the strongest way by all the facts of the case.( ) the perfectly simple interpretation of the statement is that long ago suggested by valesius,( ) that the commentary of basilides was composed upon his own gospel,( ) whether it was the gospel according to the hebrews or the egyptians. moreover, it must be borne in mind that basilides used the word "gospel" in a peculiar sense. hippolytus, in the work usually ascribed to him, writing of the basilidians and describing their doctrines, says: "when therefore it was necessary, he (?) says, that we, the children of god, should be revealed, in expectation of whose revelation, he says, the creation groaned and travailed, the gospel came into the world, and passed through every principality and power and dominion, and every name that is named."( ) "the gospel, therefore, { } came first from the sonship, he says, through the son, sitting by the archon, to the archon, and the archon learnt that he was not the god of all things but begotten,"( ) &c. "the gospel, according to them, is the knowledge of supramundane matters,"( ) &c. this may not be very intelligible, but it is sufficient to show that "the gospel" in a technical sense( ) formed a very important part of the system of basilides. now there is nothing whatever to show that the twenty-four books which he composed "on the gospel" were not in elucidation of the gospel as technically understood by him, illustrated by extracts from his own special gospel and from the tradition handed down to him by glaucias and matthias. the emphatic assertion of canon westcott that basilides "admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels," is based solely upon the following sentence of the work attributed to hippolytus; jesus, however, was generated according to these (followers of basilides) as we have already said.( ) but when the generation which has already been declared had taken place, all things regarding the saviour, according to them, occurred in like manner as they have been written in the gospel."( ) there are, however, several important points to be borne in mind in reference to this passage. the statement in question is not made in { } connection with basilides himself, but distinctly in reference to his followers, of whom there were many in the time of hippolytus and long after him. it is, moreover, a general observation the accuracy of which we have no means of testing, and upon the correctness of which there is no special reason to rely. the remark, made at the beginning of the third century, however, that the followers of basilides believed that the actual events of the life of jesus occurred in the way in which they have been written in the gospels, is no proof whatever that either they or basilides used or admitted the authority of our gospels. the exclusive use by any one of the gospel according to the hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the statement. no one who considers what is known of that gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the second century by perfectly orthodox fathers, can doubt this. the passage is, therefore, of no weight as evidence for the use of our gospels. canon westcott himself admits that in the extant fragments of isidorus, the son and disciple of basilides, who "maintained the doctrines of his father," he has "noticed nothing bearing on the books of the new testament.."( ) on the supposition that basilides actually wrote a commentary on our gospels, and used them as scripture, it is indeed passing strange that we have so little evidence on the point. we must now, however, examine in detail all of the quotations, and they are few, alleged to show the use of our gospels, and we shall commence with those of tischendorf. the first passage which he points out is found in the stromata of clement of alexandria. tischendorf guards himself, in reference to these quotations, { } by merely speaking of them as "basilidian" (basilidianisch),( ) but it might have been more frank to have stated clearly that clement distinctly assigns the quotation to the followers of basilides [------],( ) and not to basilides himself.( ) the supposed quotation, therefore, however surely traced to our gospels, could really not prove anything in regard to basilides. the passage itself compared with the parallel in matt. xix. , , is as follows:-- [------] now this passage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our first gospel might be quoted as evidence for the use of another gospel, but it cannot reasonably be cited as evidence for the use of matthew. apologists in their anxiety to grasp at the faintest analogies as testimony seem altogether to ignore the history of the creation of written gospels, and to forget the very existence of the [------] of luke.( ) the next passage referred to by tischendorf( ) is one { } quoted by epiphanius( ) which we subjoin in contrast with the parallel in matt. vii. :-- [------] here, again, the variation in order is just what one might have expected from the use of the gospel according to the hebrews or a similar work, and there is no indication whatever that the passage did not end here, without the continuation of our first synoptic. what is still more important, although teschendorf does not mention the fact, nor otherwise hint a doubt than by the use, again, of an unexplained description of this quotation as "basilidianisch" instead of a more direct ascription of it to basilides himself, this passage is by no means attributed by epiphanius to that heretic. it is introduced into the section of his work directed against the basilidians, but he uses, like clement, the indefinite [------], and as in dealing with all these heresies there is continual interchange of reference to the head and the later followers, there is no certainty who is referred to in these quotations and, in this instance, nothing to indicate that this passage is ascribed to basilides himself, his name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter of this "heresy," but not again before this [------] occurs in chapter v. teschendorf does not claim any other quotations. { } canon westcott states: "in the few pages of his (basilides') writings which remain there are certain references to the gospels of st. matthew, st. luke,"( ) &c. one might suppose from this that the "certain" references occurred in actual extracts made from his works, and that the quotations, therefore, appeared sc( ) (sp.) in a context of his own words. this impression is strengthened when we read as an introduction to the instances: "the following examples will be sufficient to show his method of quotation."( ) the fact is, however, that these examples are found in the work of hippolytus, in an epitome of the views of the school by that writer himself, with nothing more definite than a subjectless [------] to indicate who is referred to. the only examples canon westcott can give of these "certain references" to our first and third synoptics, do not show his "method of quotation" to much advantage. the first is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference to the magi and the star. "but that every thing, he says [------], has its own seasons, the saviour sufficiently teaches when he says:... and the magi having seen the star,"( ) &c. this of course canon westcott considers a reference to matt. ii. , , but we need scarcely point out that this falls to the ground instantly, if it be admitted, as it must be, that the star and the magi may have been mentioned in other gospels than the first synoptic. we have already seen, when examining the evidence of justin, that this is the case. the only quotation asserted to be taken from luke is the phrase: "the holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow { } thee,"( ) which agrees with luke i. . this again is introduced by hippolytus with another subjectless "he says," and apart from the uncertainty as to who "he" is, this is very unsatisfactory evidence as to the form of the quotation in the original text, for it may easily have been corrected by hippolytus, consciously or unconsciously, in the course of transfer to his pages. we have already met with this passage as quoted by justin from a gospel different from ours. as we have already stated, however, none of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred to basilides himself, but they are all introduced by the utterly vague expression, "he says," [------] without any subject accompanying the verb. now it is admitted that writers of the time of hippolytus, and notably hippolytus himself, made use of the name of the founder of a sect to represent the whole of his school, and applied to him, apparently, quotations taken from unknown and later followers.( ) the passages which he cites, therefore, and which appear to indicate the use of gospels, instead of being extracted from the works of the founder himself, in all probability were taken from writings of gnostics of his own time. canon westcott himself admits the possibility of this, in writing of other early heretics. he says: "the evidence that has been collected from { } the documents of these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat vague. it would be more satisfactory to know the exact position of their authors, and the precise date of their being composed. it is just possible that hippolytus made use of writings which were current in his own time without further examination, and transferred to the apostolic age forms of thought and expression which had been the growth of two, or even of three generations."( ) so much as to the reliance to be placed on the work ascribed to hippolytus. it is certain, for instance, that in writing of the sect of naaseni and ophites, hippolytus perpetually quotes passages from the writings of the school, with the indefinite [------],( ) as he likewise does in dealing with the peratici,( ) and docetæ,( ) no individual author being named; yet he evidently quotes various writers, passing from one to another without explanation, and making use of the same unvarying [------] in one place,( ) where he has "the greeks say," [------] he gives, without further indication, a quotation from pindar.( ) a still more apt instance of his method is that pointed out by volkmar,( ) where hippolytus, writing of "marcion, or some one of his hounds," uses, without further explanation, the subjectless [------] to introduce matter from the later followers of marcion.( ) now, with regard to { } basilides, hippolytus directly refers not only to the heretic chief, but also to his disciple isidorus and all their followers,( ) [------] and then proceeds to use the indefinite "he says," interspersed with references in the plural to these heretics, exhibiting the same careless method of quotation, and leaving the same complete uncertainty as to the speaker's identity as in the other cases mentioned.( ) on the other hand, it has been demonstrated by hilgenfeld, that the gnosticism ascribed to basilides by hippolytus, in connection with these quotations, is of a much later and more developed type than that which basilides himself held,( ) as shown in the actual fragments of his own writings which are still extant, and as reported by irenæus,( ) clement of alexandria,( ) and the work "adversus omnes hæreses," annexed to the "præscriptio hæreticorum" of tertullian, which is { } considered to be the epitome of an earlier work of hippolytus. the fact probably is that hippolytus derived his views of the doctrines of basilides from the writings of his later followers, and from them made the quotations which are attributed to the founder of the school.( ) in any case there is no ground for referring these quotations with an indefinite [------] to basilides himself. of all this there is not a word from canon westcott,( ) but he ventures to speak of "the testimony of basilides to our 'acknowledged' books," as "comprehensive and clear."( ) we have seen, however, that the passages referred to have no weight whatever as evidence for the use of our synoptics. the formulae (as [------] to that compared with luke i. , and [------] with references compared with some of the epistles) which accompany these quotations, and to which canon westcott points as an indication that the new testament writings were already recognized as holy scripture,( ) need no special attention, because, as it cannot be shown that the expressions were used by basilides himself at all, they do not come into question. if anything, however, were required to complete the evidence that these quotations are not from the works of basilides himself, but from later writings by his followers, it would be the use of such formulae, for as the writings of pseudo-ignatius, polycarp, justin martyr, papias, hegesippus, { } and others of the fathers in several ways positively demonstrate, the new testament writings were not admitted, even amongst orthodox fathers, to the rank of holy scripture, until a very much later period.( ) . much of what has been said with regard to the claim which is laid to basilides, by some apologists, as a witness for the gospels and the existence of a new testament canon, and the manner in which that claim is advanced, likewise applies to valentinus, another gnostic leader, who, about the year , came from alexandria to rome and flourished till about a.d. .( ) very little remains of the writings of this gnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few short quotations in the works of clement of alexandria, and some doubtful fragments preserved by others. we shall presently have occasion to refer more directly to these, and need not here more particularly mention them. tischendorf, the self-constituted modern defensor fidei,( ) asserts, with an assurance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than as an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers, that valentinus used { } the whole of our four canonical gospels. to do him full justice, we shall as much as possible give his own words; and, although we set aside systematically all discussion regarding the fourth gospel for separate treatment hereafter, we must, in order to convey the full sense of dr. tischendorf s proceeding, commence with a sentence regarding that gospel. referring to a statement of irenæus, that the followers of valentinus made use of the fourth gospel, tischendorf continues: "hippolytus confirms and completes the statement of irenæus, for he quotes several expressions of john, which valentinus employed. this most clearly occurs in the case of john x. ; for hippolytus writes: 'because the prophets and the law, according to the doctrine of valentinus, were only filled with a subordinate and foolish spirit, valentinus says: on account of this, the saviour says: all who came before me were thieves and robbers.'"(l) now this, to begin with, is a practical falsification of the text of the philosophumena, which reads: "therefore all the prophets and the law spoke under the influence of the demiurge, a foolish god, he says, (they themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing. on this account, he says, the saviour saith: all who came before me," &c. &c.( ) there is no mention whatever of the name of valentinus in the passage, and, as we shall presently { } show, there is no direct reference in the whole chapter to valentinus himself. the introduction of his name in this manner into the text, without a word of explanation, is highly reprehensible. it is true that in a note tischendorf gives a closer translation of the passage, without, however, any explanation; and here again he adds, in parenthesis to the "says he," "namely, valentinus." such a note, however, which would probably be unread by a majority of readers, does not rectify the impression conveyed by so positive and emphatic an assertion as is conveyed by the alteration in the text. tischendorf continues: "and as the gospel of john, so also were the other gospels used by valentinus. according to the statement of irenæus (i. , § ), he found the said subordinate spirit, which he calls demiurge, masterworker, emblematically represented by the centurion of capernaum (matt. viii. , luke vii. ); in the dead and resuscitated daughter of jairus, when twelve years old, (luke viii. ), he recognized a symbol of his 'wisdom' (achamoth), the mother of the masterworker (i. , § ); in like manner, he saw represented in the history of the woman who had suffered twelve years from the bloody issue, and was cured by the lord (matt. ix. ), the sufferings and salvation of his twelfth primitive spirit (aeon) (i. , § ); the expression of the lord (matt. v. ) on the numerical value of the iota ('the smallest letter') he applied to his ten aeons in repose."l now, in every instance where tischendorf here speaks of valentinus by the singular "he," irenæus uses the plural "they," referring not to the original founder of the sect, but to his followers in his own day, and the { } text is thus again in every instance falsified by the pious zeal of the apologist. in the case of the centurions "they say" [------] that he is the demiurge;( ) "they declare" [------] that the daughter of jairus is the type of achamoth;( ) "they say" [------] that the apostasy of judas points to the passion in connection with the twelfth aeon, and also the fact that jesus suffered in the twelfth month after his baptism; for they will have it [------] that he only preached for one year. the case of the woman with the bloody issue for twelve years, and the power which went forth from the son to heal her, "they will have to be horos" [------]{ } in like manner they assert that the ten aeons are indicated [------] by the letter "iota," mentioned in the saviour's expression, matt v. .( ) at the end of these and numerous other similar references in this chapter to new testament expressions and passages, irenæus says: "thus they interpret," &c. [------].( ) the plural "they" is employed throughout. tischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his statement which is supposed to be made by objectors.: "they say: all that has reference to the gospel of john was not advanced by valentinus himself, but by his disciples. and in fact, in irenæus, 'they--the valen-tinians--say,' occurs much oftener than 'he--valentinus--says.' but who is there so sapient as to draw the line between what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state without in the least repeating the { } master?"( ) tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything indiscriminately to the master. now, in reply to these observations, we must remark in the first place that the admission here made by tischendorf, that irenæus much more often uses "they say" than "he says" is still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, and without exception, irenæus uses the plural in connection with the texts in question. secondly, it is quite obvious that a gnostic, writing about a.d. - , was likely to use arguments which were never thought of by a gnostic, writing at the middle of the second century at the end of the century, the writings of the new testament had acquired consideration and authority, and gnostic writers had therefore a reason to refer to them, and to endeavour to show that they supported their peculiar views, which did not exist at all at the time when valentinus propounded his system. tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the benefit even of such a doubt as he insinuates, as to what belongs to the master, and what to the followers. such doubtful testimony could not establish anything, but it is in point of fact also totally excluded by the statement of irenæus himself. in the preface to the first book of his great work, irenæus clearly states the motives and objects for which he writes. he says: "i considered it necessary, having read the commentaries [------] _of the disciples of valentinus_, as they call themselves, and having had personal intercourse with some of them and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee," &c., and he goes on to say that he intends to set forth "the opinions of those who are _now_ teaching heresy; i speak { } particularly of the followers of ptolemæus, whose system is an offshoot of the school of valentinus."( ) nothing could be more explicit than this statement that irenæus neither intended nor pretended to write upon the works of valentinus himself, but upon the commentaries of his followers of his own time, with some of whom he had had personal intercourse, and that the system which he intended to attack was that actually being taught in his day by ptolemæus and his school, the offshoot from valentinus. all the quotations to which tischendorf refers are made within a few pages of this explicit declaration. immediately after the passage about the centurion, he says: "such is their system" [------, and three lines below he states that they derive their views from unwritten sources [------].( ) the first direct reference to valentinus does not occur until after these quotations, and is for the purpose of showing the variation of opinion of his followers. he says: "let us now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for there are two or three of them, how they do not speak alike of the same things, but contradicted one another in facts and names." then he continues: "for the first of them, valentinus, having derived his principles from the so-called gnostic heresy, and adapted them to the peculiar character of his school declared this:" &c., &c. and { } after a brief description of his system, in which no scriptural allusion occurs, he goes on to compare the views of the rest, and in chap. xii. he returns to ptolemæus and his followers [------]. in the preface to book ii, he again says that he has been exposing the falsity of the followers of valentinus (qui sunt a valentino) and will proceed to establish what he has advanced; and everywhere he uses the plural "they," with occasional direct references to the followers of valentinus (qui sunt a valentino).( ) the same course is adopted in book iii., the plural being systematically used, and the same distinct definition introduced at intervals.( ) and again, in the preface to book iv. he recapitulates that the preceding books had been written against these, "qui sunt a valentino" (§ ). in fact, it would almost be impossible for any writer more frequently and emphatically to show that he is not, as he began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the school himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the time at which he wrote. canon westcott, with whose system of positively enunciating unsupported and controverted statements we are already acquainted, is only slightly outstripped by the german apologist in his misrepresentation of the evidence of valentinus. it must be stated, however, that, acknowledging, as no doubt he does, that irenæus never refers to valentinus himself, canon westcott passes over in complete silence the supposed references upon { } which teschendorf relies as his only evidence for the use of the synoptics by that gnostic. he, however, makes the following extraordinary statement regarding valentinus: "the fragments of his writings which remain show the same natural and trustful use of scripture as other christian works of the same period; and there is no diversity of character in this respect between the quotations given in hippolytus and those found in clement of alexandria. he cites the epistle to the ephesians as 'scripture,' and refers clearly to the gospels of st. matthew, st. luke, and st. john, to the epistles to the romans,"( ) &c. we shall now give the passages which he points out in support of these assertions.( ) the first two are said to occur in the stromata of the alexandrian clement, who professes to quote the very words of a letter of valentinus to certain people regarding the passions, which are called by the followers of basilides "the appendages of the soul." the passage is as follows: "but one only is good, whose presence is the manifestation through the son, and on the canon, p. f. [in the th ed. of his work, published since the above remarks were made, dr. westcott has modified or withdrawn his assertions regarding valentinus. as we cannot well omit the above passage, it is right to state that the lines quoted now read: "the few unquestionable fragments of valentinus contain but little which points to passages of scripture. if it were clear that the anonymous quotations in hippolytus were derived from valentinus himself, the list would be much enlarged, and include a citation of the epistle to the ephesians as 'scripture,' and clear references to the gospels of st. luke and st. john, to corinthians, perhaps also to the epistle to the hebrews, and the first epistle of st. john," (p. f.). in a note he adds: "but a fresh and careful examination of the whole section of hippolytus makes me feel that the evidence is so uncertain, that i cannot be sure in this case, as in the case of basilides, that hippolytus is quoting the words of the founder" (p. , n. ). under these circumstances the statements even in the amended edition present many curious features.] { } through him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure, by the expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. for many spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure, but each of them, while in divers parts they riot there in unseemly lusts, performs its own works. and, it seems to me, the heart is somewhat like an inn. for that, also, is both bored and dug into, and often filled with the ordure of men, who abide there in revelry, and bestow not one single thought upon the place, seeing it is the property of another. and in such wise is it with the heart, so long as no thought is given to it, being impure, and the dwelling-place of many demons, but as soon as the alone good father has visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed, that he shall see god."( ) according to canon westcott this passage contains two of the "clear references" to our gospels upon which he bases his statement, namely to matt. v. , and to matt. xix. . now it is clear that there is no actual quotation from any evangelical work in this passage from the epistle of valentinus, and the utmost for which the most zealous apologist could contend is, that there is a slight similarity with some words in the gospel, and canon { } westcott himself does not venture to call them more than "references." that such distant coincidences should be quoted as evidence for the use of the first gospel shows how weak is his case. at best such vague allusions could not prove anything, but when the passages to which reference is supposed to be made are examined, it will be apparent that nothing could be more unfounded or arbitrary than the claim of reference specially to our gospel, to the exclusion of the other gospels then existing, which to our knowledge contained both passages. we may, indeed, go still further, and affirm that if these coincidences are references to any gospel at all, that gospel is not the canonical, but one different from it. the first reference alluded to consists of the following two phrases: "but one only is good [------]..... the alone good father" [------]. this is compared with matt. xix. :{ } "why askest thou me concerning good? there is one that is good" [------].( ) now the passage in the epistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such as matt. xix. , indicates with certainty the reading: "one is good the father" [------]. there is no such reading in any of our gospels. but although this reading does not exist in any of the canonical gospels, it is well known that it did exist in uncanonical gospels no longer extant, and that the passage was one upon which various sects of so-called heretics laid great stress. irenseus quotes it as one of { } the texts to which the marcosians, who made use of apocryphal gospels,( ) and notably of the gospel according to the hebrews, gave a different colouring: [------]( ) epiphanius also quotes this reading as one of the variations of the marcionites: [------].( ) origen, likewise, remarks that this passage is misused by some heretics: "velut proprie sibi datum scutum putant (hæretici) quod dixit dominus in evangelio: nemo bonus nisi unus deus pater."( ) justin martyr quotes the same reading from a source different from our gospels,( ) [------]( ) and in agreement with the repeated similar readings of the clementine homilies, which likewise derived it from an extra canonical source,( ) [------. the use of a similar expression by clement of alexandria, as well as by origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading in extinct gospels, although it is not found in any ms. of any of our gospels. the second of the supposed references is more diffuse: "one is good and through him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure [------]... but when the alone good father has visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed, that he shall see god" [------] { } [------]. this is compared( ) with matthew v. : "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see god" [------]. it might be argued that this is quite as much a reference to psalm xxiv. - as to matt. v. , but even if treated as a reference to the sermon on the mount, nothing is more certain than the fact that this discourse had its place in much older forms of the gospel than our present canonical gospels,( ) and that it formed part of the gospel according to the hebrews and other evangelical writings in circulation in the early church. such a reference as this is absolutely worthless as evidence of special acquaintance with our first synoptic.( ) tischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed references contained in the passages preserved by clement, but both the german and the english apologist join in relying upon the testimony of hippolytus,( ) with regard to the use of the gospels by valentinus, although it must be admitted that the former does so with greater fairness of treatment than canon westcott. tischendorf does refer to, and admit, some of the difficulties of the case, as we shall presently see, whilst canon westcott, as in the case of basilides, boldly makes his assertion, and totally ignores all adverse facts. the only gospel { } reference which can be adduced even in the philosophumena, exclusive of one asserted to be to the fourth gospel, which will be separately considered hereafter, is advanced by canon westcott, for teschendorf does not refer to it, but confines himself solely to the supposed reference to the fourth gospel. the passage is the same as one also imputed to basilides: "the holy spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee;" which happens to agree with the words in luke i. ; but, as we have seen in connection with justin, there is good reason for concluding that the narrative to which it belongs was contained in other gospels.( ) in this instance, however, the quotation is carried further and presents an important variation from the text of luke. "the holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore the thing begotten of thee shall be called holy"( ) [------]. the reading of luke is: "therefore also the holy thing begotten shall be called the son of god" [------]. it is probable that the passage referred to in connection with the followers of basilides may have ended in the same way as this, and been derived from the same source. nothing, however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whoever made, is not taken from our third synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single ms. which contains such a passage. we again, however, come to the question: who really made the quotations which hippolytus introduces so indefinitely? we have already, in speaking of basilides, { } pointed out the loose manner in which hippolytus and other early writers, in dealing with different schools of heretics, indifferently quote the founder or his followers without indicating the precise person quoted. this practice is particularly apparent in the work of hippolytus when the followers of valentinus are in question. tischendorf himself is obliged to admit this. he asks: "even though it be also incontestable that the author (hippolytus) does not always sharply distinguish between the sect and the founder of the sect, does this apply to the present case"?( ) he denies that it does in the instance to which he refers, but he admits the general fact. in the same way another apologist of the fourth gospel (and as the use of that gospel is maintained in consequence of a quotation in the very same chapter as we are now considering, only a few lines higher up, both the third and fourth are in the same position) is forced to admit: "the use of the gospel of john by valentinus cannot so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing (the work of hippolytus). certainly in the statement of these doctrines it gives abstracts, which contain an expression of john (x. ), and there cannot be any doubt that this is taken from some writing of the sect. but the apologist, in his expressions regarding the valentinian doctrines, does not seem to confine himself to one and the same work, but to have alternately made use of different writings of the school, for which reason we cannot say anything as to the age of this quotation, and from this testimony, therefore, we merely have further confirmation that the gospel was early( ) (?) used in the why "early"? since hippolytus writes about a.d. . { } school of the valentinians,"( ) &c. of all this not a word from canon westcott, who adheres to his system of bare assertion. now we have already quoted( ) the opening sentence of book vi. , of the work ascribed to hippolytus, in which the quotation from john x. , referred to above occurs, and ten line further on, with another intermediate and equally indefinite "he says" [------], occurs the supposed quotation from luke i. , which, equally with that from the fourth gospel, must, according to weizsäcker, be abandoned as a quotation which can fairly be ascribed to valentinus himself, whose name is not once mentioned in the whole chapter. a few lines below the quotation, however, a passage occurs which throws much light upou the question. after explaining the views of the valentinians regarding the verse: "the holy ghost shall come upon thee," &c., the writer thus proceeds: "regarding this there is among them [------] a great question, a cause both of schism and dissension. and hence their [------] teaching has become divided, and the one teaching according to them [------] is called eastern ['------] and the other italian. they from italy, of whom is heracleon and ptolemæus, say [------] that the body of jesus was animal, and on account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the holy spirit like a dove came down--that is, the logos from the mother above, sophia--and became joined to the animal, and raised him from the dead. this, _he says_ [------] is the declaration [------],"--and here be it observed we come to another of the "clear { } references" which canon westcott ventures, deliberately and without a word of doubt, to attribute to valentinus himself,( )--"this, he says, is the declaration: 'he who raised christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies,'( ) that is animal. for the earth has come under a curse: 'for dust, he says [------] thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.'( ) on the other hand, those from the east [------], of whom is axionicus and bardesanes, say [------] that the body of the saviour was spiritual, for the holy spirit came upon mary, that is the sophia and the power of the highest."( ) &c. in this passage we have a good illustration of the mode in which the writer introduces his quotations with the subjectless "he says." here he is conveying the divergent opinions of the two parties of valentinians, and explaining the peculiar doctrines of the italian school "of whom is heracleon and ptolemæus," and he suddenly departs from the plural "they" to quote the passage from romans viii. , in support of their views with the singular "he says." nothing can be more obvious than that "he" cannot possibly be valentinus himself, for the schism is represented as taking place { } amongst his followers, and the quotation is evidently made by one of them to support the views of his party in the schism, but whether hippolytus is quoting from heraclcon or ptolemæus or some other of the italian( ) school, there is no means of knowing. of all this, again, nothing is said by canon westcott, who quietly asserts without hesitation or argument, that valentinus himself is the person who here makes the quotation. we have already said that the name of valentinus does not occur once in the whole chapter (vi. ) which we have been examining, and if we turn back we find that the preceding context confirms the result at which we have arrived, that the [------] has no reference to the founder himself, but is applicable only to some later member of his school, most probably contemporary with hippolytus. in vi. , hippolytus discusses the heresy of valentinus, which he traces to pythagoras and plato, but in ch. he passes from direct reference to the founder to deal entirely with his school. this is so manifest, that the learned editors of the work of hippolytus, professors duncker and schneidewin, alter the preceding heading at that part from "valentinus" to "valentiniani." at the beginning of ch. hippolytus writes: "valentinus, therefore, and heracleon and ptolemæus and the whole school of these (heretics)... have laid down as the fundamental principle of their teaching the arithmetical system. for according to these," &c. and a few lines lower down: "there is discernible amongst them, however, considerable difference of opinion. for many of them, in order that the quotation from an epistle to the romans by the italian school is appropriate. { } the pythagorean doctrine of valentinus may be wholly pure, suppose, &c., but others," &c. he shortly after says that he will proceed to state their doctrines as they themselves teach them [------]. he then continues: "there is, he says [------]" &c. &c., quoting evidently one of these followers who want to keep the doctrine of valentinus pure, or of the "others," although without naming him, and three lines further on again, without any preparation, returning to the plural "they say" [------] and so on through the following chapters, "he says" alternating with the plural, as the author apparently has in view something said by individuals or merely expresses general views. in the chapter ( ) preceding that which we have principally been examining, hippolytus begins by referring to "the quaternion according to valentinus," but after five lines on it, he continues: "this is what they say: [------]"( ) and then goes on to speak of "their whole teaching" [------], and lower down he distinctly sets himself to discuss the opinions of the school in the plural: "thus these (valentinians) subdivide the contents of the pleroma," &c. [------], and continues with an occasional "according to them "[------] until, without any name being mentioned, he makes use of the indefinite "he says" to introduce the quotation referred to by canon westcott as a citation by valentinus himself of "the epistle to the ephesians as scripture."( ) "this is, he says, what is written in scripture," and there follows a quotation which, it may merely be mentioned as canon westcott says nothing of it, differs considerably from the passage in the epistle { } iii. -- . immediately after, another of canon west-cott's quotations from cor. ii. , is given, with the same indefinite "he says," and in the same way, without further mention of names, the quotations in ch. compared with john x. , and luke i. . there is, therefore, absolutely no ground whatever for referring these [------] to valentinus himself; but, on the contrary, hippolytus shows in the clearest way that he is discussing the views of the later writers of the sect, and it is one of these, and not the founder himself, whom in his usual indefinite way he thus quotes. we have been forced by these bald and unsupported assertions of apologists to go at such length into these questions at the risk of being very wearisome to our readers, but it has been our aim as much as possible to make no statements without placing before those who are interested the materials for forming an intelligent opinion. any other course would be to meet mere assertion by simple denial, and it is only by bold and unsubstantiated statements which have been simply and in good faith accepted by ordinary readers who have not the opportunity, if they have even the will, to test their veracity, that apologists have so long held their ground. our results regarding valentinus so far may be stated as follows: the quotations which without any explanation are so positively imputed to valentinus are not made by him, but by later writers of his school;( ) and, moreover, the passages which are indicated by the english apologist as references to our two synoptic gospels not only do ( ) not emanate from valentinus, but do not agree with our gospels, and are apparently derived from other sources.( ) the remarks of canon westcott with regard, to the connection of valentinus with our new testament are on a par with the rest of his assertions. he says: "there is no reason to suppose that valentinus differed from catholic writers on the canon of the new testament."( ) we might ironically adopt this sentence, for as no writer whatever of the time of valentinus, as we have seen, recognized any new testament canon at all, he certainly did not in this respect differ from the other writers of that period. canon westcott relies upon the statement of tertullian, but even here, although he quotes the latin passage in a note, he does not fully give its real sense in his text. he writes in immediate continuation of the quotation given above: "tertullian says that in this he differed from marcion, that he at least professed to accept 'the whole instrument,' perverting the interpretation, where marcion mutilated the text." now the assertion of tertullian has a very important modification, which, to any one acquainted with the very unscrupulous boldness of the "great african" in dealing with religious controversy, is extremely significant. he does not make the assertion positively and of his own knowledge, but modifies it by saying: "nor, indeed, if valentinus seems to use the on the canon, p. . [dr. westcott omits these words from his th ed., but he uses others here and elsewhere which imply very nearly the same assertion.] { } whole instrument, (neque enim si valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur),"( ) &c. tertullian evidently knew very little of valentinus himself, and had probably not read his writings at all.( ) his treatise against the valentinians is avowedly not original, but, as he himself admits, is compiled from the writings of justin, miltiades, irenæus, and proclus.( ) tertullian would not have hesitated to affirm anything of this kind positively, had there been any ground for it, but his assertion is at once too uncertain, and the value of his statements of this nature much too small, for such a remark to have any weight as evidence.( ) besides, by his own showing valentinus altered scripture (sine dubio emen-dans),( ) which he could not have done had he recognized it as of canonical authority.( ) we cannot, however, place any reliance upon criticism emanating from tertullian. all that origen seems to know on this subject is that the followers of valentinus [------] have altered the form of the gospel [------].( ) clement of alexandria, however, informs us that valentinus, like basilides, professed to have direct traditions from the apostles, his teacher being theodas, a disciple of the apostle paul.( ) if he had known any gospels which he believed to have apostolic authority, there would clearly not have been any need of such tradition. hippolytus distinctly affirms that valentinus derived his system from pythagoras and plato, { } and "not from the gospels" [-----], and that consequently he might more properly be considered a pythagorean and platonist than a christian.( ) irenæus, in like manner, asserts that the valentinians derive their views from unwritten sources [------],( ) and he accuses them of rejecting the gospels, for after enumerating them,( ) he continues: "when, indeed, they are refuted out of the scriptures, they turn round in accusation of these same scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of authority.... for (they say) that it (the truth) was not conveyed by written records but by the living voice."( ) in the same chapter he goes on to show that the valen-tinians not only reject the authority of scripture, but also reject ecclesiastical tradition. he says: "but, again, when we refer them to that tradition which is from the apostles, which has been preserved through a succession of presbyters in the churches, they are opposed to tradition, affirming themselves wiser not only than presbyters, but even than the apostles, in that they have discovered the uncorrupted truth. for (they say) the apostles mixed up matters which are of the law with the words of the saviour, &c.... it comes to this, they neither consent to scripture nor to tradition. (evenit itaque, neque scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos.)"( ) we find, therefore, that even in the time of irenæus the valentinians rejected the writings { } of the new testament as authoritative documents, which they certainly would not have done had the founder of their sect himself acknowledged them. so far from this being the case, there was absolutely no new testament canon for valentinus himself to deal with,( ) and his perfectly orthodox contemporaries recognized no other holy scriptures than those of the old testament. irenæus, however, goes still further, and states that the valentinians of his time not only had many gospels, but that they possessed one peculiar to themselves. "those indeed who are followers of valentinus," he says, "again passing beyond all fear, and putting forth their own compositions, boast that they have more gospels than there actually are. indeed they have proceeded so far in audacity that they entitle their not long written work, agreeing in nothing with the gospels of the apostles, the gospel of truth, so that there cannot be any gospel among them without blasphemy."( ) it follows clearly, from the very name of the valentinian gospel, that they did not consider that others contained the truth,( ) and indeed irenæus himself perceived this, for he continues: "for if what is published by them be the gospel of truth, yet is dissimilar from those which have been delivered to us by the apostles, any may perceive who please, as is demonstrated by these very scriptures, that that which has been handed down from the apostles is not the gospel of truth."( ) these passages speak for { } themselves. it has been suggested that the "gospel of truth" was a harmony of the four gospels.( ) this, however, cannot by any possibility have been the case, inasmuch as irenæus distinctly says that it did not agree in anything with the gospels of the apostles. we have been compelled to devote too much space to valentinus, and we now leave him with the certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence even of the existence of our synoptic gospels. { } chapter vii. marcion we must now turn to the great heresiarch of the second century, marcion, and consider the evidence regarding our gospels which may be derived from what we know of him. the importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion from the materials within our reach have rendered marcion's gospel the object of very elaborate criticism, and the discussion of its actual character has continued with fluctuating results for nearly a century. marcion was born at sinope, in pontus, of which place his father was bishop,( ) and although it is said that he aspired to the first place in the church of rome,( ) the presbyters refused him communion on account of his peculiar views of christianity. we shall presently more fully refer to his opinions, but here it will be sufficient to say that he objected to what he considered the debasement of true christianity by jewish elements, and he upheld the teaching of paul alone, in opposition to that of all the other apostles, whom he accused of mixing { } up matters of the law with the gospel of christ, and falsifying christianity,( ) as paul himself had protested.( ) he came to rome about a.d. -- ,( ) and continued teaching for some twenty years.( ) his high personal character and elevated views produced a powerful effect upon his time,( ) and, although during his own lifetime and long afterwards vehemently and with every opprobrious epithet denounced by ecclesiastical writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that in the time of epiphanius his followers were to be found throughout the whole world.( ) marcion is said to have recognized as his sources of christian doctrine, besides tradition, a single gospel and ten epistles of paul, which in his collection stood in the following order;--epistle to galatians, corinthians ( ), romans, thessalonians ( ), ephesians (which he had with { } the superscription "to the laodiceans"),( ) colossians, philippians, and philemon.( ) none of the other books which now form part of the canonical new testament were either mentioned or recognized by marcion.( ) this is the oldest collection of apostolic writings of which there is any trace,( ) but there was at that time no other "holy scripture" than the old testament, and no new testament canon had yet been imagined. marcion neither claimed canonical authority for these writings,( ) nor did he associate with them any idea of divine inspiration.( ) we have already seen the animosity expressed by contemporaries of marcion against the apostle paul. the principal interest in connection with the collection of marcion, however, centres in his single gospel, the nature, origin, and identity of which have long been actively and minutely discussed by learned men of all shades of opinion with very varying results. the work itself is unfortunately no longer extant, and our only knowledge of it is derived from the bitter and very inaccurate opponents of marcion. it seems to have borne much the same analogy to our third canonical gospel which existed between the gospel according to { } the hebrews and our first synoptic.( ) the fathers, whose uncritical and, in such matters, prejudiced character led them to denounce every variation from their actual texts as a mere falsification, and without argument to assume the exclusive authenticity and originality of our gospels, which towards the beginning of the third century had acquired wide circulation in the church, vehemently stigmatized marcion as an audacious adulterator of the gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work to be merely a mutilated and falsified version of the "gospel according to luke."( ) this view continued to prevail, almost without question or examination, till towards the end of the eighteenth century, when biblical criticism began to exhibit the earnestness and activity which have ever since more or less characterized it. semler first abandoned the prevalent tradition, and, after analyzing the evidence, he concluded that marcion's gospel and luke's were different versions of an earlier work,( ) and that the so-called heretical gospel was one of the numerous gospels from amongst which the canonical had been selected by the church.( ) griesbach about the same time also rejected the ruling opinion, and denied the close relationship usually asserted to exist between the two gospels.( ) loffler( ) and corrodi( ) strongly supported sender's { } conclusion, that marcion was no mere falsifier of luke's gospel, and j. e. c. schmidt( ) went still further, and asserted that marcion's gospel was the genuine luke, and our actual gospel a later version of it with alterations and additions. eichhorn,( ) after a fuller and more exhaustive examination, adopted similar views; he repudiated the statements of tertullian regarding marcion's gospel as utterly untrustworthy, asserting that he had not that work itself before him at all, and he maintained that marcion's gospel was the more original text and one of the sources of luke. bolten,( ) bertholdt,( ) schleiermacher,( ) and d. schulz( ) likewise maintained that marcion's gospel was by no means a mutilated version of luke, but, on the contrary, an independent original gospel a similar conclusion was arrived at by gieseler,( ) but later, after hahn's criticism, he abandoned it, and adopted the opinion that marcion's gospel was constructed out of luke.( ) on the other hand, the traditional view was maintained by storr,( ) arneth,( ) hug,( ) neander,( ) and gratz,( ) although with little originality of investigation or argument; and { } paulus( ) sought to reconcile both views by admitting that marcion had before him the gospel of luke, but denying that he mutilated it, arguing that tertullian did not base his arguments on the actual gospel of marcion, but upon his work, the "antitheses." hahn,( ) however, undertook a more exhaustive examination of the problem, attempting to reconstruct the text of marcion's gospel( ) from the statements of tertullian and epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that the work was a mere version, with omissions and alterations made by the heresiarch in the interest of his system, of the third canonical gospel. olshausen( ) arrived at the same result, and with more or less of modification but no detailed argument, similar opinions were expressed by credner,( ) de wette,( ) and others.( ) not satisfied, however, with the method and results of { } hahn and olshausen, whose examination, although more minute than any previously undertaken, still left much to be desired, ritschl(l) made a further thorough investigation of the character of mansion's gospel, and decided that it was in no case a mutilated version of luke, but, on the contrary, an original and independent work, from which the canonical gospel was produced by the introduction of anti-marcionitish passages and readings. baur( ) strongly enunciated similar views, and maintained that the whole error lay in the mistake of the fathers, who had, with characteristic assumption, asserted the earlier and shorter gospel of marcion to be an abbreviation of the later canonical gospel, instead of recognizing the latter as a mere extension of the former. schwegler( ) had already, in a remarkable criticism of marcion's gospel declared it to be an independent and original work, and in no sense a mutilated luke, but, on the contrary, probably the source of that gospel. kostlin,( ) while stating that the theory that marcion's gospel was an earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to luke was not very probable, affirmed that much of the marcionitish text was more original than the canonical, and that both gospels must be considered versions of the same original, although luke's was the later and more corrupt. these results, however, did not satisfy volkmar,( ) who entered afresh upon a searching examination of the whole subject, and concluded that whilst, on the one hand, the { } gospel of marcion was not a mere falsified and mutilated form of the canonical gospel, neither was it, on the other, an earlier work, and still less the original gospel of luke, but merely a gnostic compilation from what, so far as we are concerned, may be called the oldest codex of luke's gospel, which itself is nothing more than a similar pauline edition of the original gospel. volkmar's analysis, together with the arguments of hilgenfeld, succeeded in convincing ritschl,{ } who withdrew from his previous opinions, and, with those critics, merely maintained some of marcion's readings to be more original than those of luke,{ } and generally defended marcion from the aspersions of the fathers, on the ground that his procedure with regard to luke's gospel was precisely that of the canonical evangelists to each other;{ } luke himself being clearly dependent both on mark and matthew.{ } baur was likewise induced by volkmar's and hilgenfeld's arguments to modify his views;{ } but although for the first time he admitted that marcion had altered the original of his gospel frequently for dogmatic reasons, he still maintained that there was an older form of the gospel without the earlier chapters, from which both marcion and luke directly constructed their gospels;--both of them stood in the same line in regard to the original; both altered it; the one abbreviated, the other extended it.{ } encouraged by this success, but not yet satisfied, volkmar immediately undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of the text of marcion, in the hope of finally settling the { } discussion, and he again, but with greater emphasis, confirmed his previous results.( ) in the meantime hilgenfeld( ) had seriously attacked the problem, and, like hahn and volkmar, had sought to reconstruct the text of marcion, and, whilst admitting many more original and genuine readings in the text of marcion, he had also decided that his gospel was dependent on luke, although he further concluded that the text of luke had subsequently gone through another, though slight, manipulation before it assumed its present form. these conclusions he again fully confirmed after a renewed investigation of the subject.( ) this brief sketch of the controversy which has so long occupied the attention of critics will at least show the uncertainty of the data upon which any decision is to be based. we have not attempted to give more than the barest outlines, but it will appear as we go on that most of those who decide against the general independence of mansion's gospel, at the same time admit his partial originality and the superiority of some of his readings over those of the third synoptic, and justify his treatment of luke as a procedure common to the evangelists, and warranted not only by their example but by the fact that no gospels had in his time emerged from the position of private documents in limited circulation. marcion's gospel not being any longer extant, it is important to establish clearly the nature of our knowledge regarding it, and the exact value of the data from which various attempts have been made to reconstruct the text. it is manifest that the evidential force of any deductions from a reconstructed text is almost wholly { } dependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the materials from which that text is derived. the principal sources of our information regarding marcion's gospel are the works of his most bitter denouncers tertullian and epiphanius, who, however, it must be borne in mind, wrote long after his time,--the work of tertullian against marcion having been composed about a.d. ,( ) and that of epiphanius a century later. we may likewise merely mention here the "_dialogus de recta in deum fide_," commonly attributed to origen, although it cannot have been composed earlier than the middle of the fourth century.( ) the first three sections are directed against the marcionites, but only deal with a late form of their doctrines.( ) as volkmar admits that the author clearly had only a general acquaintance with the "antitheses," and principal proof passages of the marcionites, but, although he certainly possessed the epistles, had not the gospel of marcion itself,( ) we need not now more particularly consider it. we are, therefore, dependent upon the "dogmatic and partly blind and unjust adversaries"( ) of marcion for our only knowledge of the text they stigmatize; and when the character of polemical discussion in the early centuries of our era is considered, it is certain that great caution must be exercised, and not too much weight attached to the statements of opponents who regarded a heretic with abhorrence, and attacked him with an acrimony which carried them far beyond the limits of fairness and truth. their religious controversy bristles with { } misstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. tertullian was a master of this style, and the vehement vituperation with which he opens( ) and often interlards his work against "the impious and sacrilegious marcion" offers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism. epiphanius was, if possible, still more passionate and exaggerated in his representations against him.( ) undue importance must not, therefore, be attributed to their statements.( ) not only should there be caution exercised in receiving the representations of one side in a religious discussion, but more particularly is such caution necessary in the case of tertullian, whose trustworthiness is very far from being above suspicion, and whose inaccuracy is often apparent.( ) "son christianisme," says reuss, "est ardent, sincere, profondément ancré dans son âme. l'on voit qu'il en vit. mais ce christianisme est âpre, insolent, brutal, ferrailleur. ii est sans onction et sans charité, quelquefois merae sans loyauté, des qu'il se trouve en face d'une opposition quelconque. c'est un soldat qui ne sait que se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant, qu'il faut aussi respecter son ennemi. dialecticien subtil et rusé, il excelle h, ridiculiser ses adversaires. l'injure, le sarcasme, un langage qui rappelle parfois en vérité le genre de rabelais, une effronterie d'affirmation dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise et atteint meme la mauvaise foi, voila ses armes. je sais ce qu'il faut en cela mettre surde compte de l'époque.... si, au second siècle, { } tous les partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intolerants, tertullian test plus que tout le monde."( ) the charge of mutilating and interpolating the gospel of luke is first brought against marcion by irenæus,( ) and it is repeated with still greater vehemence and fulness by tertullian,( ) and epiphanius;( ) but the mere assertion by fathers at the end of the second and in the third centuries, that a gospel different from their own was one of the canonical gospels falsified and mutilated, can have no weight whatever in itself in the inquiry as to the real nature of that work.( ) their arbitrary assumption of exclusive originality and priority for the four gospels of the church led them, without any attempt at argument, to treat every other evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of these. the arguments by which tertullian endeavours to establish that the gospels of luke and the other canonical evangelists were more ancient than that of marcion( ) show that he had no idea of historical or critical evidence.( ) we are, however, driven back upon such actual data regarding the text and contents of marcion's gospel as are given by the fathers, as the only basis, in the absence of the gospel itself, upon which any hypothesis as to its real character can be built. the question therefore is: are these data sufficiently ample and trustworthy for a decisive judgment { } from internal evidence? if indeed internal evidence in such a case can be decisive at all. all that we know, then, of marcion's gospel is simply what tertullian and epiphanius have stated with regard to it. it is, however, undeniable, and indeed is universally admitted, that their object in dealing with it at all was entirely dogmatic, and not in the least degree critical( ). the spirit of that age was indeed so essentially uncritical( ) that not even the canonical text could waken it into activity. tertullian very clearly states what his object was in attacking marcion's gospel. after asserting that the whole aim of the heresiarch was to prove a disagreement between the old testament and the new, and that for this purpose he had erased from the gospel all that was contrary to his opinion, and retained all that he had considered favourable, tertullian proceeds to examine the passages retained,( ) with the view of proving that the heretic has shown the same "blindness of heresy" both in that which he has erased and in that which he has retained, inasmuch as the passages which marcion has allowed to remain are as opposed to his system, as those which he has omitted. he conducts the controversy in a free and discursive manner, and whilst he appears to go through marcion's gospel with some regularity, it will be apparent, as we proceed, that { } mere conjecture has to play a large part in any attempt to reconstruct, from his data, the actual text of marcion. epiphanius explains his aim with equal clearness. he had made a number of extracts from the so-called gospel of marcion which seemed to him to refute the heretic, and after giving a detailed and numbered list of these passages, which he calls [------], he takes them consecutively and to each adds his "refutation." his intention is to show how wickedly and disgracefully marcion has mutilated and falsified the gospel, and how fruitlessly he has done so, inasmuch as he has stupidly, or by oversight, allowed much to remain in his gospel by which he may be completely refuted.( ) as it is impossible within our limits fully to illustrate the procedure of the fathers with regard to marcion's gospel, and the nature and value of the materials they supply, we shall as far as possible quote the declarations of critics, and more especially of volkmar and hilgenfeld, who, in the true and enlightened spirit of criticism, impartially state the character of the data available for the understanding of the text. as these two critics have, by their able and learned investigations, done more than any others to educe and render possible a decision of the problem, their own estimate of the materials upon which a judgment has to be formed is of double value. with regard to tertullian, volkmar explains that his desire is totally to annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time,--first (books i.--iii.), to overthrow marcion's system in general as expounded in his "antitheses,"--and then (book iv.) to show that even the gospel of marcion { } only contains catholic doctrine (he concludes, "_christus jesus in evangelio tuo mens est_" c. ); and therefore he examines the gospel only so far as may serve to establish his own view and refute that of marcion. "to show," volkmar continues, "wherein this gospel was falsified or mutilated, _i.e._, varied from his own, on the contrary, is in no way his design, for he perceives that marcion could retort the reproach of interpolation, and in his time proof from internal grounds was hardly possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation seems to him remarkable, does he specially mention it."( ) on the other hand volkmar remarks that tertullian's latin rendering of the text of marcion which lay before him,--which, although certainly free and having chiefly the substance in view, is still in weightier passages verbally accurate,--directly indicates important variations in that text. he goes on to argue that the silence of tertullian may be weighty testimony for the fact that passages which exist in luke, but which he does not mention, were missing in marcion's gospel, but he does so with considerable reservation. "but his silence _alone_," he says, "can only under certain conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an omission in marcion. it is indeed probable that he would not lightly have passed over a passage in the gospel of marcion which might in any way be contradictory to its system, if one altogether similar had not preceded it, all the more as he frequently drags in by force such proof passages from marcion's text, and often plainly with but a certain sophistry tries to refute his adversary out of the words of his own gospel. but it remains always possible that in his eagerness he has { } overlooked much; and besides, he believes that by his replies to particular passages he has already sufficiently dealt with many others of a similar kind; indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat himself. a certain conclusion, therefore, can only be deduced from the silence of tertullian when special circumstances enter."(l) volkmar, however, deduces with certainty from the statements of tertullian that, whilst he wrote, he had not before him the gospel of luke, but intentionally laid it aside, and merely referred to the marcionitish text, and further that, like all the fathers of the third century, he preferred the gospel according to matthew to the other synoptics, and was well acquainted with it alone, so that in speaking of the gospel generally he only has in his memory the sense, and the sense alone of luke except in so far as it agrees or seems to agree with matthew.( ) with regard to the manner in which tertullian performed the work he had undertaken, hilgenfeld remarks: "as tertullian, in going through the marcionitish gospel, has only the object of refutation in view, he very rarely states explicitly what is missing in it; and as, on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude from the silence of tertullian that a passage is wanting, when it is altogether inexplicable that he should not have made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other, we must also know how marcion used and interpreted the gospel, and should never lose sight of tertullian's refutation and defence."( ) hahn substantially expresses the same opinions. he { } says: "inasmuch as tertullian goes through the mar-cionitish text with the view of refuting the heretic out of that which he accepts, and not of critically pointing out all variations, falsifications, and passages rejected, he frequently quotes the falsified or altered marcionitish text without expressly mentioning the variations.( )... yet he cannot refrain--although this was not his object--occasionally, from noticing amongst other things any falsifications and omissions which, when he perhaps examined the text of luke or had a lively recollection of it, struck and too grievously offended him."( ) volkmar's opinion of the procedure of epiphanius is still more unfavourable. contrasting it with that of tertullian, he characterizes it as "more superficial," and he considers that its only merit is its presenting an independent view of marcion's gospel. further than this, however, he says: "how far we can build upon his statements, whether as regards their completeness or their trustworthiness is not yet made altogether clear."( ) volk-mar goes on to show how thoroughly epiphanius intended to do his work, and yet that, although from what he himself leads us to expect, we might hope to find a complete statement of marcion's sins, the father himself disappoints such an expectation by his own admission of incompleteness. he complains generally of his free and misleading method of quotation, such, for instance, as his alteration of the text without explanation; alteration of the same passage on different occasions in more than one way; abbreviations, and omissions of parts of quotations; the sudden breaking off of passages just commenced with { } the indefinite [------], without any indication how much this may include.( ) volkmar, indeed, explains that epiphanius is only thoroughly trustworthy where, and _so far as_, he wishes to state in his scholia an omission or variation in marcion's text from his own canonical gospel, in which case he minutely registers the smallest point, but this is to be clearly distinguished from any charge of falsification brought against marcion in his refutations; for only while earlier drawing up his scholia had he the mar-cionitish gospel before him and compared it with luke; but in the case of the refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later, he did not at least again compare the gospel of luke. "it is, however, altogether different," continues volkmar, "as regards the statements of epiphanius concerning the part of the gospel of luke which is preserved in marcion. whilst he desires to be _strictly literal_ in the account of the _variations_, and also with two exceptions _is_ so, he so generally adheres _only to the purport_ of the passages retained by marcion, that altogether literal quotations are quite exceptional; _throughout_, however, where passages of greater extent are referred to, these are not merely abbreviated, but also are quoted in _very free_ fashion, and nowhere can we reckon that the passage in marcion ran verbally as epiphanius quotes it."( ) and to this we may add a remark made further on: "we cannot in general rely upon the accuracy of his statements in regard to that which marcion had in common with luke."( ) on the other hand volkmar had previously { } said: "absolute completeness in regard to that which marcion's gospel did not contain is not to be reckoned upon in his scholia. he has certainly not intended to pass over anything, but in the eagerness which so easily renders men superficial and blind much has escaped him."(l) hahn bears similar testimony to the incompleteness of epiphanius. "it was not his purpose," he says, "fully to notice all falsifications, variations, and omissions, although he does mark most of them, but merely to extract from the gospel of marcion, as well as from his collection of epistles, what seemed to him well suited for refutation."( ) but he immediately adds: "when he quotes a passage from marcion's text, however, in which such falsifications occur, he generally,--but not always,--notes them more or less precisely, and he had himself laid it down as a subsidiary object of his work to pay attention to such falsifications."( ) a little further on he says: "in the quotations of the remaining passages which epiphanius did not find different from the gospel of luke, and where he therefore says nothing of falsification or omission, he is often very free, neither adhering strictly to the particular words, nor to their arrangement, but his favourite practice is to give their substance and sense for the purpose of refuting his opponent. he presupposes the words known from the gospel of luke."( ) it must be stated, however, that both volkmar( ) and hilgenfeld( ) consider that the representations of { } tertullian and epiphanius supplement each other and enable the contents of marcion's gospel to be ascertained with tolerable certainty. yet a few pages earlier volkmar had pointed out that: "the ground for a certain fixture of the text of the marcionitish gospel, however, seems completely taken away by the fact that tertullian and epiphanius, in their statements regarding its state, not merely repeatedly seem to, but in part actually do, directly contradict each other."( ) hahn endeavours to explain some of these contradictions by imagining that later marcionites had altered the text of their gospel, and that epiphanius had the one form and tertullian another;( ) but such a doubt only renders the whole of the statements regarding the work more uncertain and insecure. that it is not without some reason, however, appears from the charge which tertullian brings against the disciples of marcion: "for they daily alter it (their gospel) as they are daily refuted by us."( ) in fact, we have no assurance whatever that the work upon which tertullian and epiphanius base their charge against marcion of falsification and mutilation of luke was marcion's original gospel at all, and we certainly have no historical evidence on the point.( ) the question even arises, whether tertullian, and indeed epiphanius, had marcion's gospel in any shape before them when they wrote, or merely his work the { } "antitheses."( ) in commencing his onslaught on marcion's gospel, terlullian says: "marcion seems (videtur) to have selected luke, to mutilate it."( ) this is the first serious introduction of his "mutilation hypothesis," which he thenceforward presses with so much assurance, but the expression is very uncertain for so decided a controversialist, if he had been able to speak more positively.( ) we have seen that it is admitted that epiphanius wrote without again comparing the gospel of marcion with luke, and it is also conceded that tertullian at least had not the canonical gospel, but in professing to quote luke evidently does so from memory, and approximates his text to matthew, with which gospel, like most of the fathers, he was better acquainted. this may be illustrated by the fact that both tertullian and epiphanius reproach marcion with erasing passages from the gospel of luke, which never were in luke at all.( ) in one place tertullian says: "marcion, you must also remove this from the gospel: 'i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of israel,'( ) and: 'it is not meet to take the children's bread, and give it to dogs,'( ) in order, be it known, that christ may not seem to be an israelite."( ) the "great african" { } thus taunts his opponent, evidently under the impression that the two passages were in luke, immediately after he had accused marcion of having actually expunged from that gospel, "as an interpolation,"( ) the saying that christ had not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them,( ) which likewise never formed part of it. he repeats a similar charge on several other occasions.( ) epiphanius commits the same mistake of reproaching marcion with omitting from luke what is only found in matthew.( ) we have, in fact, no certain guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of their statements. we have said enough, we trust, to show that the sources for the reconstruction of a text of marcion's gospel are most unsatisfactory, and no one who attentively studies the analysis of hahn, ritschl, volkmar, hilgenfeld, and others, who have examined and systematized the data of the fathers, can fail to be struck by the uncertainty which prevails throughout, the almost continuous vagueness and consequent opening, nay, necessity, for conjecture, and the absence of really sure indications. the fathers had no intention of showing what marcion's text actually was, and their object being solely dogmatic and not critical, their statements are very insufficient for the purpose.( ) the materials have had to be ingeniously collected and sifted from polemical writings whose authors, so far from professing to furnish them, were only bent upon seeking in marcion's gospel such points as could legitimately, or by sophistical skill, be used against him. passing observations, general { } remarks, as well as direct statements, have too often been the only indications guiding the patient explorers and, in the absence of certain information, the silence of the angry fathers has been made the basis for important conclusions. it is evident that not only is such a procedure necessarily uncertain and insecure, but that it rests upon assumptions with regard to the intelligence, care and accuracy of tertullian and epiphanius, which are not sufficiently justified by that part of their treatment of marcion's text which we can examine and appreciate. and when all these doubtful landmarks have failed, too many passages have been left to the mere judgment of critics, as to whether they were too opposed to marcion's system to have been retained by him, or too favourable to have been omitted. the reconstructed texts, as might be expected, differ from each other, and one editor finds the results of his predecessors incomplete or unsatisfactory, although naturally at each successive attempt, the materials previously collected and adopted have contributed to an apparently more complete result. after complaining of the incompleteness and uncertainty of the statements of tertullian and epiphanius, ritschl affirms that they furnish so little solid material on which to base a hypothesis, that rather by means of a hypothesis must we determine the remains of the gospel from tertullian.( ) hilgenfeld quotes this with approval, and adds, that at least ritschl's opinion is so far right, that all the facts of the case can no longer be settled from external data, and that the general view regarding the { } gospel only can decide many points.( ) this means of course that hypothesis is to supply that which is wanting in the fathers. volkmar, in the introduction to his last comprehensive work on marcion's gospel, says: "and, in fact, it is no wonder that critics have for so long, and substantially to so little effect, fought over the protean question, for there has been so much uncertainty as to the very basis (fundament) itself,--the precise text of the remarkable document,--that baur has found full ground for rejecting, as unfounded, the supposition on which that finally-attained decision (his previous one) rested."( ) critics of all shades of opinion are forced to admit the incompleteness of the materials for any certain reconstruction of marcion's text and, consequently, for an absolute settlement of the question from internal evidence,( ) although the labours of volkmar and hilgenfeld have materially increased our knowledge of the contents of his gospel. we must contend, however, that, desirable and important as it is to ascertain as perfectly as possible the precise nature of marcion's text, the question of its origin and relation to luke would not by any means be settled even by its final reconstruction. there would, as we shall presently show, remain unsolved the problem of its place in that successive manipulation of materials by which a few gospels gradually absorbed and displaced the rest. our own synoptics { } exhibit unmistakable traces of the process, and clearly forbid our lightly setting aside the claim of marcion's gospel to be considered a genuine work, and no mere falsification and abbreviation of luke. before proceeding to a closer examination of marcion's gospel and the general evidence bearing upon it, it may be well here briefly to refer to the system of the heresiarch whose high personal character exerted so powerful an influence upon his own time,( ) and whose views continued to prevail widely for a couple of centuries after his death. it was the misfortune of marcion to live in an age when christianity had passed out of the pure morality of its infancy, when, untroubled by complicated questions of dogma, simple faith and pious enthusiasm had been the one great bond of christian brotherhood, into a phase of ecclesiastical development in which religion was fast degenerating into theology, and complicated doctrines were rapidly assuming that rampant attitude which led to so much bitterness, persecution, and schism. in later times marcion might have been honoured as a reformer, in his own he was denounced as a heretic.( ) austere and ascetic in his opinions, he aimed at superhuman purity, and although his clerical adversaries might scoff at his impracticable doctrines regarding marriage and the subjugation of the flesh, they have had their parallels amongst those whom the church has since most delighted to honour; and at least the whole tendency of his system was markedly towards the side of virtue.( ) it would of course be foreign to our { } purpose to enter upon any detailed statement of its principles, and we must confine ourselves to such particulars only as are necessary to an understanding of the question before us. as we have already frequently had occasion to mention, there were two broad parties in the primitive church, and the very existence of christianity was in one sense endangered by the national exclusiveness of the people amongst whom it originated. the one party considered christianity a mere continuation of the law, and dwarfed it into an isrealitish institution, a narrow sect of judaism; the other represented the glad tidings as the introduction of a new system applicable to all and supplanting the mosaic dispensation of the law by a universal dispensation of grace. these two parties were popularly represented in the early church by the apostles peter and paul, and their antagonism is faintly revealed in the epistle to the galatians. marcion, a gentile christian, appreciating the true character of the new religion and its elevated spirituality, and profoundly impressed by the comparatively degraded and anthropomorphic features of judaism, drew a very sharp line of demarcation between them, and represented christianity as an entirely new and separate system abrogating the old and having absolutely no connection with it. jesus was not to him the messiah of the jews, the son of david come permanently to establish the law and the prophets, but a divine being sent to reveal to man a wholly new spiritual religion, and a hitherto unknown god of goodness and grace. the creator [------], { } the god of the old testament, was different from the god of grace who had sent jesus to reveal the truth, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all, and to abrogate the jewish god of the world and of the law, who was opposed to the god and father of jesus christ as matter is to spirit, impurity to purity. christianity was in distinct antagonism to judaism, the spiritual god of heaven, whose goodness and love were for the universe, to the god of the world, whose chosen and peculiar people were the jews, the gospel of grace to the dispensation of the old testament. christianity, therefore, must be kept pure from the judaistic elements humanly thrust into it, which were so essentially opposed to its whole spirit. marcion wrote a work called "antitheses" [------], in which he contrasted the old system with the new, the god of the one with the god of the other, the law with the gospel, and in this he maintained opinions which anticipated many held in our own time. tertullian attacks this work in the first three books of his treatise against marcion, and he enters upon the discussion of its details with true theological vigour: "now, then, ye hounds, yelping at the god of truth, whom the apostle casts out,( ) to all your questions! these are the bones of contention which ye gnaw!"( ) the poverty of the "great african's" arguments keeps pace with his abuse. marcion objected: if the god of the old testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived { } by the devil, and to fall from obedience of the law into sin and death?( ) how came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at all?( ) after the fall, god became a judge both severe and cruel; woman is at once condemned to bring forth in sorrow and to serve her husband, changed from a help into a slave; the earth is cursed which before was blessed, and man is doomed to labour and to death.( ) the law was one of retaliation and not of justice,--lex talionis--eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe.( ) and it was not consistent, for in contravention of the decalogue, god is made to instigate the israelites to spoil the egyptians, and fraudulently rob them of their gold and silver;( ) to incite them to work on the sabbath by ordering them to carry the ark for eight days round jericho;( ) to break the second commandment by making and setting up the brazen serpent and the golden cherubim.( ) then god is inconstant, electing men, as saul and solomon, whom he subsequently rejects;( ) repenting that he had set up saul, and that he had doomed the ninevites,( ) and so on. god calls out: adam, where art thou? inquires whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit; asks of cain where his brother was, as if he had not yet heard the blood of abel crying from the ground, and did not already know all these things.( ) anticipating the results of modem criticism, marcion denies the applicability to jesus of the so-called messianic prophecies. the emmanuel of { } isaiah (vii. , cf. viii. ) is not christ;( ) the "virgin" his mother is simply a "young woman" according to jewish phraseology;( ) and the sufferings of the servant of god (isaiah lii. --liii. ) are not predictions of the death of jesus.( ) there is a complete severance between the law and the gospel, and the god of the latter is the antithesis of that of the former.( ) "the one was perfect, pure, beneficent, passionless; the other, though not unjust by nature, infected by matter,--subject to all the passions of man,--cruel, changeable; the new testament, especially as remodelled by marcion,( ) was holy, wise, amiable; the old testament, the law, barbarous, inhuman, contradictory, and detestable."( ) marcion ardently maintained the doctrine of the impurity of matter, and he carried it to its logical conclusion, both in speculation and practice. he, therefore, asserting the incredibility of an incarnate god, denied the corporeal reality of the flesh of christ. his body was a mere semblance and not of human substance, was not born of a human mother, and the divine nature was not degraded by contact with the flesh.( ) marcion finds in paul the purest promulgator of the truth as he understands it, and emboldened by the epistle to the galatians, in which that apostle rebukes even apostles for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," he accuses the other apostles of having depraved the pure form of the gospel doctrines delivered to them by we give this quotation as a resume by an english historian and divine, but the idea of the "new testament remodelled by marcion," is a mere ecclesiastical imagination. { } jesus,( ) "mixing up matters of the law with the words of the saviour."( ) tertullian reproaches marcion with having written the work in which he details the contrasts between judaism and christianity, of which we have given the briefest sketch, as an introduction and encouragement to belief in his gospel, which he ironically calls "the gospel according to the antitheses;"( ) and the charge which the fathers bring against marcion is that he laid violent hands on the canonical gospel of luke, and manipulated it to suit his own views. "for certainly the whole object at which he laboured in drawing up the 'antitheses.'" says tertullian, "amounts to this: that he may prove a disagreement between the old and new testament, so that his own christ may be separated from the creator, as of another god, as alien from the law and the prophets. for this purpose it is certain that he has erased whatever was contrary to his own opinion and in harmony with the creator, as if interpolated by his partisans, but has retained everything consistent with his own opinion."( ) the whole hypothesis that marcion's gospel is a mutilated version of our third synoptic in fact rested upon this accusation. it is obvious that if it cannot be shown that marcion's gospel was our canonical gospel merely garbled by the heresiarch for dogmatic reasons in the interest of his system,--for there could not be any other conceivable { } reason for tampering with it,--the claim of marcion's gospel to the rank of a more original and authentic work than luke's acquires double force. we must, therefore, inquire into the character of the variations between the so-called heretical, and the canonical gospels, and see how far the hypothesis of the fathers accord with the contents of marcion's gospel so far as we are acquainted with it. at the very outset we are met by the singular phenomenon, that both tertullian and epiphanius, who accuse marcion of omitting everything which was unfavourable, and retaining only what was favourable to his views, undertake to refute him out of what remains in his gospel. tertullian says: "it will then be proved that he has shown the same defect of blindness of heresy both in that which he has erased and that which he has retained."( ) epiphanius also confidently states that, out of that which marcion has allowed to remain of the gospel, he can prove his fraud and imposture, and thoroughly refute him.( ) now if marcion mutilated luke to so little purpose as this, what was the use of his touching it at all? he is known as an able man, the most influential and distinguished of all the heretical leaders of the second century, and it seems unreasonable to suppose that, on the theory of his erasing or altering all that contradicted his system, he should have done his work so imperfectly.( ) the fathers say that he endeavours to get rid of the contradictory passages which remain by a system of false interpretation; but surely he would not have allowed himself to be driven { } to this extremity, leaving weapons in the hands of his opponents, when he might so easily have excised the obnoxious texts along with the rest? it is admitted by critics, moreover, that passages said to have been omitted by marcion are often not opposed to his system at all, and sometimes, indeed, even in favour of it;( ) and on the other hand, that passages which were retained are contradictory to his views.( ) this is not intelligible upon any theory of arbitrary garbling of a gospel in the interest of a system. it may be well to give a few instances of the anomalies presented, upon this hypothesis, by marcion's text. some critics believe that the verses luke vii. -- , were wanting in marcion's gospel.( ) hahn accounts for the omission of verses , , regarding the baptism of john, because they represented the relation of the baptist to jesus in a way which marcion did not admit.( ) but as he allowed the preceding verses to remain, such a proceeding was absurd. in verse he calls john a prophet, and much more than a prophet, and in the next verse ( ) quotes respecting him the words of { } malachi iii. : "this is he of whom it is written: behold i send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." it is impossible on any reasonable ground to account for the retention of such honourable mention of the baptist, if verses , were erased for such dogmatic reasons.( ) still more incomprehensible on such a hypothesis is the omission of luke vii. -- , where that generation is likened unto children playing in the market-place and calling to each other: "we piped unto you and ye danced not," and jesus continues: "for john is come neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, he hath a devil ( ). the son of man is come, eating and drinking; and ye say: behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." hahn attributes the omission of these verses to the sensuous representation they give of jesus as eating and drinking.( ) what was the use of eliminating these verses when he allowed to remain unaltered verse of the same chapter,( ) in which jesus is invited to eat with the pharisee, and goes into his house and sits down to meat? or v. -- ,( ) in which jesus accepts the feast of levi, and defends his disciples for eating and drinking against the murmurs of the scribes and pharisees? or xv. ,( ) { } where the pharisees say of him: "this man receiveth sinners and eateth with them?" how absurdly futile the omission of the one passage for dogmatic reasons, while so many others were allowed to remain unaltered.( ) the next passage to which we must refer is one of the most important in connection with marcion's docetic doctrine of the person of jesus. it is said that he omitted viii. : "and his mother and his brethren came to him and could not come at him for the crowd," and that he inserted in verse , [------]; making the whole episode in his gospel read ( ): "and it was told him by certain which said: thy mother and thy brethren stand without desiring to see thee: . but he answered and said unto them: who are my mother and brethren? my mother and my brethren are these," &c. the omission of verse is said to have been made because, according to marcion, christ was not born like an ordinary man, and consequently had neither mother nor brethren.( ) the mere fact, however, that marcion retains verse , in which the crowd simply state as a matter fully recognized, the relationship of those who were seeking jesus, renders the omission of the preceding verse useless,( ) except on the ground of mere redundancy. marcion is reported not to have had the word [------] in x. ,( ) "so that the question of the lawyer simply ran: { } "master, what shall i do to inherit life?" the omission of this word is supposed to have been made in order to make the passage refer back to the god of the old testament, who promises merely long life on earth for keeping the commandments, whilst it is only in the gospel that _eternal_ life is promised.( ) but in the corresponding passage, xviii. ,( ) the [------] is retained, and the question of the ruler is: "good master, what shall i do to inherit eternal life?" it has been argued that the introduction of the one thing still lacking (verse ) after the keeping of the law and the injunction to sell all and give to the poor, changes the context, and justifies the use there of _eternal_ life as the reward for fulfilment of the higher commandment.( ) this reasoning, however, seems to us without grounds, and merely an ingenious attempt to account for an embarrassing fact. in reality the very same context occurs in the other passage, for, explaining the meaning of the word "neighbour," love to whom is enjoined as part of the way to obtain "life," jesus inculcates the very same duty as in xviii. , of distributing to the poor (cf. x. -- ). there seems, therefore, no reasonable motive for omitting the word from the one passage whilst retaining it in the other.( ) the passage in luke xi. -- , from the concluding words of verse , "but the sign of the prophet jonah" { } was not found in marcion's gospel.( ) this omission is accounted for on the ground that such a respectful reference to the old testament was quite contrary to the system of marcion.( ) verses -- of the same chapter, containing the saying of the "wisdom of god," regarding the sending of the prophets that the jews might slay them, and their blood be required of that generation, were also omitted.( ) the reason given for this omission is, that the words of the god of the old testament are too respectfully quoted and adopted to suit the views of the heretic.( ) the words in verses -- , "and a greater than solomon--than jonah is here," might well have been allowed to remain in the text, for the superiority of christ over the kings and prophets of the old testament which is asserted directly suits and supports the system of marcion. how much less, however, is the omission of these passages to be explained upon any intelligent dogmatic principle, when we find in marcion's text the passage in which jesus justifies his conduct on the sabbath by the example of david (vi. -- ),( ) and that in which he assures the disciples of the greatness of their reward in heaven for the persecutions they were to endure: { } "for behold your reward is great in heaven: for after the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets" (vi. ).( ) as we have seen, jesus is also allowed to quote an old testament prophecy (vii. ) as fulfilled in the coming of john to prepare the way for himself. the questions which jesus puts to the scribes (xx. -- ) regarding the christ being david's son, with the quotation from ps. ex. , which marcion is stated to have retained,( ) equally refute the supposition as to his motive for "omitting" xi. ff. it has been argued with regard to the last passage that jesus merely uses the words of the old testament to meet his own theory,( ) but the dilemma in which jesus places the scribes is clearly not the real object of his question: its aim is a suggestion of the true character of the christ. but amongst his other sins with regard to luke's gospel, marcion is also accused of interpolating it. and in what way? why the heresiarch, who is so averse to all references to the old testament that he is supposed to erase them, actually, amongst his few interpolations, adds a reference to the old testament. between xvii. and (some critics say in verse ) marcion introduced the verse which is found in luke iv. : "and many lepers were in israel in the time of elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed saving naaman, the syrian."( ) now is it conceivable that a man who inserts, as it is said, references to the { } old testament into his text so gratuitously, can have been so inconsistent as to have omitted these passages because they contain similar references? we must say that the whole of the reasoning regarding these passages omitted and retained, and the fine distinctions which are drawn between them, are anything but convincing. a general theory being adopted, nothing is more easy than to harmonise everything with it in this way; nothing is more easy than to assign some reason, good or bad, apparently in accordance with the foregone conclusion, why one passage was retained, and why another was omitted, but in almost every case the reasoning might with equal propriety be reversed if the passages were so, and the retention of the omitted passage as well as the omission of that retained be quite as reasonably justified. the critics who have examined marcion's gospel do not trouble themselves to inquire if the general connection of the text be improved by the absence of passages supposed to be omitted, but simply try whether the supposed omissions are explainable on the ground of a dogmatic tendency in marcion. in fact, the argument throughout is based upon foregone conclusions, and rarely upon any solid grounds whatever. the retention of such passages as we have quoted above renders the omission of the other for dogmatic reasons quite purposeless.( ) the passage, xii. , , which argues that as the sparrows are not forgotten before god, and the hairs of our head are numbered, the disciples need not fear, was not found in mansion's gospel.( ) the supposed omission { } is explained on the ground that, according to marcion's system, god does not interest himself about such trifles as sparrows and the hairs of our head, but merely about souls.( ) that such reasoning is arbitrary, however, is apparent from the fact, that marcion's text had verse of the same chapter:( ) "consider the ravens," &c., &c., and "god feedeth them:" &c., and also v. ,( ) "but if god so clothe the grass," &c., &c., "how much more will he clothe you, o! ye of little faith?" as no one ventures to argue that marcion limited the providence of god to the ravens, and to the grass, but excluded the sparrows and the hair, no dogmatic reason can be assigned for the omission of the one, whilst the other is retained.( ) the first nine verses of ch. xiii. were likewise absent from marcion's text,( ) wherein jesus declares that like the galilæans, whose blood pilate had mixed with their sacrifices (v. , ), and the eighteen upon whom the tower in siloam fell (v. ), "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish," (v. and ), and then recites the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree (v. -- ), which the master of the vineyard orders to be cut down (v. ), but then spares for a season (v. , ). the theory advanced to account for the asserted "omission" of these { } verses is that they could not be reconciled with marcion's system, according to which the good god never positively punishes the wicked, but merely leaves them to punish themselves in that, by not accepting the proffered grace, they have no part in the blessedness of christians.( ) in his earlier work, volkmar distinctly admitted that the whole of this passage might be omitted without prejudice to the text of luke, and that he could not state any ground, in connection with marcion's system, which rendered its omission either necessary or even conceivable. he then decided that the passage was not contained at all in the version of luke, which marcion possessed, but was inserted at a later period in our codices.( ) it was only on his second attempt to account for all omissions on dogmatic grounds that he argued as above. in like manner hilgenfeld also, with rettig, considered that the passage did not form part of the original luke, so that here again marcion's text was free from a very abrupt passage, not belonging to the more pure and primitive gospel.( ) baur recognizes not only that there is no dogmatic ground to explain the omission, but on the contrary, that the passage fully agrees with the system of marcion.( ) the total insufficiency of the argument to explain the omission, however, is apparent from the numerous passages, which were allowed to remain in the text, which still more clearly outraged this part of marcion's system. in the parable of the great supper, xiv. -- , the lord is angry (v. ), and declares that none of those who were { } bidden should taste of his supper (v. ). in xii. , jesus warns his own disciples: "fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, i say unto you: fear him." it is not permissible to argue that marcion here understands the god of the old testament, the creator, for he would thus represent his christ as forewarning his own disciples to fear the power of that very demiurge, whose reign he had come to terminate. then again, in the parable of the wise steward, and the foolish servants, xii. ff, he declares (v. ), that the lord of the foolish servant "will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers," and (vs. , ) that the servants shall be beaten with stripes, in proportion to their fault. in the parable of the nobleman who goes to a far country and leaves the ten pounds with his servants, xix. ff, the lord orders his enemies, who would not that he should reign over them, to be brought and slain before him (v. ). then, how very much there was in the epistles of paul, which he upheld, of a still more contradictory character. there is no dogmatic reason for such inconsistency.( ) marcion is accused of having falsified xiii. in the following manner: "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see _all the just_ [------] in the kingdom of god, but you yourselves being thrust, _and bound_ [------] without." the substitution of "all the just" for "abraham, isaac, and jacob, and all the prophets," is one of those variations which the supporter of the dogmatic theory greedily lays hold of, as bearing evident tokens of falsification in anti-judaistic interest.( ) but marcion had in his gospel { } the parable of the rich man and lazarus, xvi. -- , where the beggar is carried up into abraham's bosom.( ) and again, there was the account of the transfiguration, ix. -- , in which moses and elias are seen in converse with jesus.( ) the alteration of the one passage for dogmatic reasons, whilst the parable of lazarus is retained, would have been useless. hilgenfeld, however, in agreement with baur and ritschl, has shown that marcion's reading [------] is evidently the contrast to the [------] of the preceding verse, and is superior to the canonical version, which was either altered after matth. viii. , or with the anti-marcionitish object of bringing the rejected patriarchs into recognition.( ) the whole theory in this case again goes into thin air, and it is consequently weakened in every other. marcion's gospel did not contain the parable of the prodigal son, xv. -- .( ) the omission of this passage, { } which is universally recognized as in the purest paulinian spirit, is accounted for partly on the ground that a portion of it (v. -- ) was repugnant to the ascetic discipline of marcion, to whom the killing of the fatted calf, the feasting, dancing and merry-making, must have been obnoxious, and, partly because, understanding under the similitude of the elder son the jews, and of the younger son the gentiles, the identity of the god of the jews and of the christians would be recognized.( ) there is, however, the very greatest doubt admitted as to the interpretation which marcion would be likely to put upon this parable, and certainly the representation which it gives of the gentiles, not only as received completely on a par with the jews, but as only having been lost for a time, and found again, is thoroughly in harmony with the teaching of paul, who was held by marcion to be the only true apostle. it could not, therefore, have been repugnant to him. any points of disagreement could very easily have been explained away, as his critics are so fond of asserting to be his practice in other passages.( ) as to the supposed dislike of marcion for the festive character of the parable, what object could he have had for omitting this, when he retained the parable of the { } great supper, xiv. -- ; the feast in the house of levi, v. -- ; the statements of jesus eating with the pharisees, vii. , xv. ? if marcion had any objection to such matters, he had still greater to marriage, and yet jesus justifies his disciples for eating and drinking by the similitude of a marriage feast, himself being the bridegroom: v. , , "can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them: then will they fast in those days." and he bids his disciples to be ready "like men that wait for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding," (xii. ), and makes another parable on a wedding feast (xiv. -- ). leaving these passages, it is impossible to see any dogmatic reason for excluding the others.( ) the omission of a passage in every way so suitable to marcion's system as the parable of the vineyard, xx. -- , is equally unintelligible upon the dogmatic theory. marcion is accused of falsifying xvi. , by altering [------],( ) making the passage read: "but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of my words to fail." the words in the canonical gospel, it is argued, were too repugnant to him to be allowed to remain unaltered, representing as they do the permanency of "the law" to which he was opposed.( ) upon this hypothesis, why did he leave { } x. f. (especially v. ) and xviii. ff, in which the keeping of the law is made essential to life? or xvii. , where jesus bids the lepers conform to the requirements of the law? or xvi. , where the answer is given to the rich man pleading for his relatives: "they have moses and the prophets, let them hear them"?(l) hilgenfeld, however, with others, points out that it has been fully proved that the reading in marcion's text is not an arbitrary alteration at all, but the original expression, and that the version in luke xvi. , on the contrary, is a variation of the original introduced to give the passage an anti-marcionitish tendency.( ) here, again, it is clear that the supposed falsification is rather a falsification on the part of the editor of the third canonical gospel.( ) one more illustration may be given. marcion is accused of omitting from xix. the words: "forasmuch as he also is a son of abraham," [------] leaving merely: "and jesus said unto him: this day is salvation come to this house." marcion's system, it is said, could not tolerate the phrase which was erased.( ) it was one, however, eminently in the spirit of his apostle paul, and in his favourite epistle to the galatians he retained the very parallel { } passage iii. , "ye know, therefore, that they which are of faith, these are the sons of abraham."( ) how could he, therefore, find any difficulty in such words addressed to the repentant zacchaeus, who had just believed in the mission of christ? moreover, why should he have erased the words here, and left them standing in xiii. , in regard to the woman healed of the "spirit of infirmity:" "and ought not this woman, _being a daughter of abraham_, whom satan hath bound, lo! these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?" no reasoning can explain away the substantial identity of the two phrases. upon what principle of dogmatic interest, then, can marcion have erased the one while he retained the other?( ) we have taken a very few passages for illustration, and treated them very briefly, but it may roundly be said that there is scarcely a single variation of marcion's text regarding which similar reasons are not given, and which do not present similar anomalies in consequence of what has elsewhere been retained.( ) as we have already stated, much that is really contradictory to marcion's system was found in his text, and much which either is not opposed or is favourable to it is omitted { } and cannot be set down to arbitrary alteration. moreover, it has never been shown that the supposed alterations were made by marcion himself,( ) and till this is done the pith of the whole theory is wanting. there is no principle of intelligent motive which can account for the anomalies presented by marcion's gospel, considered as a version of luke mutilated and falsified in the interest of his system. the contrast of what is retained with that which is omitted reduces the hypothesis _ad absurdum_. marcion was too able a man to do his work so imperfectly, if he had proposed to assimilate the gospel of luke to his own views. as it is avowedly necessary to explain away by false and forced interpretations requiring intricate definitions( ) very much of what was allowed to remain in his text, it is inconceivable that he should not have cut the gordian knot with the same unscrupulous knife with which it is asserted he excised the rest the ingenuity of most able and learned critics endeavouring to discover whether a motive in the interest of his system cannot be conceived for every alteration is, notwithstanding the evident scope afforded by the procedure, often foiled. yet a more elastic hypothesis could not possibly have been advanced, and that the text obstinately refuses to fit into it, is even more than could have been expected. marcion is like a prisoner at the bar without witnesses, who is treated from the first as guilty, attacked by able and passionate adversaries who warp every possible circumstance against him, and yet who cannot be convicted. the foregone conclusion by which every supposed omission from his gospel is explained, is, as we have shown, almost in { } every case contradicted by passages which have been allowed to remain, and this is rendered more significant by the fact, which is generally admitted, that marcion's text contains many readings which are manifestly superior to, and more original than, the form in which the passages stand in our third synoptic.( ) the only one of these to which we shall refer is the interesting variation from the passage in luke xi. , in the substitution of a prayer for the holy spirit for the "hallowed be thy name,"--[------]. the former is recognized to be the true original reading. this phrase is evidently referred to in v. . we are, therefore, indebted to marcion for the correct version of "the lord's prayer."( ) there can be no doubt that marcion's gospelbore great analogy to our luke, although it was very considerably shorter. it is, however, unnecessary to repeat that there were many gospels in the second century which, although nearly related to those which have become canonical, were independent works, and the most favourable interpretation which can be given of the relationship between our three synoptics leaves them very much in a line with marcion's work. his gospel was chiefly distinguished { } by a shorter text,( ) but besides large and important omissions there are a few additions,( ) and very many variations of text. the whole of the first two chapters of luke, as well as all the third, was wanting, with the exception of part of the first verse of the third chapter, which, joined to iv. , formed the commencement of the gospel. of chapter iv. verses -- , -- and were likewise probably absent. some of the other more important omissions are xi. -- , -- , xiii. -- , -- , xv. -- , xvii. -- (probably), xviii. -- , xix. -- , xx. -- , -- , xxi. -- , , -- > xxii. -- , -- , -- , -- , and there is great doubt about the concluding verses of xxiv. from to the end, but it may have terminated with v. . it is not certain whether the order was the same as luke,( ) but there are instances of decided variation, especially at the opening. as the peculiarities of the opening variations have had an important effect in inclining some critics towards the acceptance of the mutilation hypothesis,( ) it may be well for us briefly to examine the more important amongst them. marcion's gospel is generally said to have commenced thus: "in the fifteenth year of the reign of tiberius cæsar, jesus came down to capernaum, a city of galilee."( ) { } there are various slightly differing readings of this. epiphanius gives the opening words, [------]. tertullian has: anno quintodecimo principatus tiberiani.... de-scendisse in civitatem galilsææ capharnaum."( ) the [-------]s of epiphanius has permitted the conjecture that there might have been an additional indication of the time, such as "pontius pilate being governor of judæa,"( ) but this has not been generally adopted.( ) it is not necessary for us to discuss the sense in which the "came down" [------] was interpreted, since it is the word used in luke. marcion's gospel then proceeds with iv. : "and taught them on the sabbath days, (v. ), and they were exceedingly astonished at his teaching, for his word was power." then follow vs. -- containing the healing of the man with an unclean spirit,( ) and of simon's wife's mother, with the important omission of the expression "of nazareth" (najapipc) after "jesus" in the cry of the possessed (v. ). the vs. -- immediately _follow_ iv. , with important { } omissions and variations. in iv. , where jesus comes to nazareth, the words "where he had been brought up" are omitted, as is also the concluding phrase "and stood up to read."( ) verses -- , in which jesus reads from isaiah, are altogether wanting.( ) volkmar omits the whole of v. , hilgenfeld only the first half down to the sitting down, retaining the rest; hahn retains from "and he sat down" to the end.( ) of v. only: "he began to speak to them" is retained.( ) from v. the concluding phrase: "and said: is not this joseph's son" is omitted,( ) as are also the words "in thy country" from v. .( ) verse , containing the proverb: "a prophet has no honour" is wholly omitted,( ) but the best critics differ regarding the two following verses -- ; they are omitted according to hahn, ritschl and de wette,( ) but retained by volkmar and hilgenfeld.( ) verse , { } referring to the leprosy of naaman, which, it will be remembered, is interpolated at xvii. , is omitted here by most critics, but retained by vojkmar.( ) verses -- come next,( ) and the four verses iv. -- , which then immediately follow, complete the chapter. this brief analysis, with the accompanying notes, illustrates the uncertainty of the text, and, throughout the whole gospel, conjecture similarly plays the larger part. we do not propose to criticise minutely the various conclusions arrived at as to the state of the text, but must emphatically remark that where there is so little certainty there cannot be any safe ground for delicate deductions regarding motives and sequences of matter. nothing is more certain than that, if we criticise and compare the synoptics on the same principle, we meet with the most startling results and the most irreconcileable difficulties.( ) the opening of marcion's gospel is more free from abruptness and crudity than that of luke. it is not necessary to show that the first three chapters of luke present very many differences from the other synoptics. mark omits them altogether, and they do not even agree with the account in matthew. some of the oldest gospels of which we have any knowledge, such as the gospel according to the hebrews, are said not to have had the narrative of the first two chapters at all,( ) and there is much more than doubt as to their originality. the mere omission of the history of { } the infancy, &c., from mark, however, renders it unnecessary to show that the absence of these chapters from marcion's gospel has the strongest support and justification. now luke's account of the early events and geography of the gospel history is briefly as follows: nazareth is the permanent dwelling-place of joseph and mary,( ) but on account of the census they travel to bethlehem, where jesus is born;( ) and after visiting jerusalem to present him at the temple,( ) they return "to their own city nazareth."( ) after the baptism and temptation jesus comes to nazareth "where he had been brought up,"( ) and in the course of his address to the people he says: "ye will surely say unto me this proverb: physician heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in capernaum do also here in thy country."( ) no mention, however, has before this been made of capernaum, and no account has been given of any works done there; but, on the contrary, after escaping from the angry mob at nazareth, jesus goes for the first time to capernaum, which, on being thus first mentioned, is particularized as "a city of galilee,"( ) where he heals a man who had an unclean spirit, in the synagogue, who addresses him as "jesus of nazareth;"( ) and the fame of him goes throughout the country.( ) he cures simon's wife's mother of a fever( ) and when the sun is set they bring the sick and he heals them.( ) the account in matthew contradicts this in many points, some of which had better be indicated here. jesus is born in bethlehem, which is the ordinary { } dwelling-place of the family;( ) his parents fly thence with him into egypt,( ) and on their return, they dwell "in a city called nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: he shall be called a nazarene."( ) after john's imprisonment, jesus leaves nazareth, and goes to dwell in capernaum.( ) from that time he begins to preach.( ) here then, he commences his public career in capernaum. in mark, jesus comes from nazareth to be baptized,( ) and after the imprisonment of john, he comes into galilee preaching.( ) in capernaum, he heals the man of the unclean spirit, and simon's wife's mother,( ) and then retires to a solitary place,( ) returns after some days to capernaum( ) without going to nazareth at all, and it is only at a later period that he comes to his own country, and quotes the proverb regarding a prophet.( ) it is evident from this comparison, that there is very considerable difference between the three synoptics, regarding the outset of the career of jesus, and that there must have been decided elasticity in the tradition, and variety in the early written accounts of this part of the gospel narrative. luke alone commits the error of making jesus appear in the synagogue at nazareth, and refer to works wrought at capernaum, before any mention had been made of his having preached or worked wonders there to justify the allusions ii. . we need not pause here to point out that there is no such prophecy known in the old testament. the reference may very probably bo a singularly mistaken application of the word in isaiah xi. , the hebrew word for branch being [----] nazer. { } and the consequent agitation. it is obvious that there has been confusion in the arrangement of the third synoptic and a transposition of the episodes, clearly pointing to a combination of passages from other sources.( ) now marcion's gospel did not contain these anomalies. it represented jesus as first appearing in capernaum, teaching in the synagogue, and performing mighty works there, and _then_ going to nazareth, and addressing the people with the natural reference to the previous events at capernaum, and in this it is not only more consecutive, but also adheres more closely to the other two synoptics. that luke happens to be the only one of our canonical gospels, which has the words with which marcion's gospel commences, is no proof that these words were original in that work, and not found in several of the writings which existed before the third synoptic was compiled. indeed, the close relationship between the first three gospels is standing testimony to the fact that one gospel was built upon the basis of others previously existing. this which has been called "the chief prop of the mutilation hypothesis,"( ) has really no solid ground to stand on beyond the accident that only one of three gospels survives out of many which may have had the phrase. the fact that marcion's gospel really had the words of luke, moreover, is mere conjecture, inasmuch as epiphanius, who alone gives the greek, shows a distinct variation of reading. he has: [------] cf. luke iv. ; matt. viii. ; mark vi. -- . we do not go into the question as to the sufficiency of the motives ascribed for the agitation at nazareth, or the contradiction between the facts narrated as to the attempt to kill jesus, and the statement of their wonder at his gracious words, v. , &o. there is no evidence where the various discrepancies arose, and no certain conclusions can be based upon such arguments. { } [------].( ) luke reads: [------]. we do not of course lay much stress upon this, but the fact that there is a variation should be noticed. critics quietly assume, because there is a difference, that epiphanius has abbreviated, but that is by no means sure. in any case, instances could be multiplied to show that if one of our synoptic gospels were lost, one of the survivors would in this manner have credit for passages which it had in reality either derived from the lost gospel, or with it drawn from a common original source. now starting from the undeniable fact that the synoptic gospels are in no case purely original independent works, but are based upon older writings, or upon each other, each gospel remodelling and adding to already existing materials, as the author of the third gospel, indeed, very frankly and distinctly indicates,( ) it seems a bold thing to affirm that marcion's gospel must necessarily have been derived from the latter. ewald has made a minute analysis of the synoptics assigning the materials of each to what he considers their original source. we do not of course attach any very specific importance to such results, for it is clear that they must to a great extent be arbitrary and incapable of proof, but being effected without any reference to the question before us, it may be interesting to compare ewald's conclusions regarding the parallel part of luke, with the first chapter of marcion's gospel. ewald details the materials from which our synoptic gospels luke i. -- . he professes to write in order the things in which theophilus had already been instructed, not to tell something new, but merely that he might know the certainty thereof. { } were derived, and the order of their composition as follows, each synoptic of course making use of the earlier materials: i. the oldest gospel. ii. the collection of discourses (spruchsammlung). iii. mark. iv. the book of earlier history. v. our present matthew. vi. the sixth recognizable book. vii. the seventh book. viii. the eighth book; and ix. luke.( ) now the only part of our third canonical gospel corresponding with any part of the first chapter of marcion's gospel which ewald ascribes to the author of our actual luke is the opening date.( ) the passage to which the few opening words are joined, and which constitute the commencement of marcion's gospel, luke iv. -- , is a section commencing with verse , and extending to the end of the chapter, thereby including verses -- , which ewald assigns to mark.( ) verses -- , which immediately follow, also form a complete and isolated passage assigned by ewald, to the "sixth recognizable book."( ) verses -- , also are the whole the verses iv. -- , which. volkmar wished to include, but which all other critics reject (see p. , note ), from marcion's text, ewald likewise identifies as an isolated couple of verses by the author of our luke inserted between episodes derived from other written sources. cf. ewald, . c. { } of another isolated section attributed by ewald, to the "book of earlier history," whilst -- , in like manner form another complete and isolated episode, assigned by him to the "eighth recognizable book."( ) according to ewald, therefore, luke's gospel at this place is a mere patchwork of older writings, and if this be in any degree accepted, as in the abstract, indeed, it is by the great mass of critics, then the gospel of marcion might be an arrangement different from luke of materials not his, but previously existing, and of which, therefore, there is no warrant to limit the use and reproduction to the canonical gospel. the course pursued by critics, with regard to marcion's gospel, is necessarily very unsatisfactory. they commence with a definite hypothesis, and try whether all the peculiarities of the text may not be more or less well explained by it. on the other hand, the attempt to settle the question by a comparison of the reconstructed text with luke's is equally inconclusive. the determination of priority of composition from internal evidence, where there are no chronological references, must as a general rule be arbitrary, and can rarely be accepted as final. internal evidence would, indeed, decidedly favour the priority of marcion's gospel. the great uncertainty of the whole system, even when applied under the most favourable circumstances, is well illustrated by the contradictory results at which critics have arrived as to the order of production and dependence on each other of our three synoptics. without going into details, we may say that critics who are all agreed upon the mutual dependence of those gospels have variously arranged them in the following order: i. matthew-- { } mark--luke.( ) ii. matthew--luke--mark.( ) iii. mark--matthew--luke.( ) iv. mark--luke--matthew.( ) v. luke--matthew--mark.( ) vi. all three out of common written sources.( ) were we to state the various theories still more in detail, we might largely increase the variety of conclusions. these, however, suffice to show the uncertainty of results derived from internal evidence. it is always assumed that marcion altered a gospel to suit his own particular system, but as one of his most orthodox critics, while asserting that luke's narrative lay at the basis of his gospel, admits: "it is not equally clear that all the changes were due to marcion himself;"( ) and, although he considers that "some of the omissions can be explained by his peculiar doctrines," he continues: "others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do from a time anterior to all of course we only pretend to indicate a few of the critics who adopt each order. so bengel, bolton, ebrard, grotius, hengstenberg, hug, hilgenfeld, holtzmann, mill, seiler, townson, wetstein. so ammon, baur, bleek, delitzsch, fritzsche, gfrorer, griesbach, kern, eostlin, neudecker, saunier, schwarz, schwegler, sieffert, stroth, theilo, owon, paulus, de wette. so credner, ewald, hitzig, lachmann, (?) xteuss, bitschl, meyer, storr, thiersch. b. bauer, hitzig (?) schnockonburger, volkmar, weisse, wilke. busching, eyanson. bortholdt, le clerc, corrodi, eichhorn, gratz, hanlein, koppe, kuinoel, leasing, marsh, michaelis, niemeyer, semler, schleiermacher, schmidt, weber. this view was partly shared by many of those mentioned under other orders. { } other authorities in our possession."( ) now, undoubtedly, the more developed forms of the gospel narrative were the result of additions, materially influenced by dogmatic and other reasons, made to earlier and more fragmentary works, but it is an argument contrary to general critical experience to affirm that a gospel, the distinguishing characteristic of which is greater brevity, was produced by omissions in the interest of a system from a longer work. in the earlier editions of this work, we contended that the theory that marcion's gospel was a mutilated form of our third synoptic had not been established, and that more probably it was an earlier work, from which our gospel might have been elaborated. we leave the statement of the case, so far, nearly in its former shape, in order that the true nature of the problem and the varying results and gradual development of critical opinion may be better understood. since the sixth edition of this work was completed, however, a very able examination of marcion's gospel has been made by dr. sanday,( ) which has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is untenable, that the portions of our third synoptic excluded from marcion's gospel were really written by the same pen which composed the mass of the work and, consequently, that our third synoptic existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of marcion. this conviction is mainly the result of the linguistic analysis, sufficiently indicated by dr. sanday and, since, exhaustively carried out for ourselves. we still consider the argument based upon the mere dogmatic views of marcion, which has hitherto been almost { } exclusively relied on, quite inconclusive by itself, but the linguistic test, applied practically for the first time in this controversy by dr. sanday, must, we think, prove irresistible to all who are familiar with the comparatively limited vocabulary of new testament writers. throughout the omitted sections, peculiarities of language and expression abound which clearly distinguish the general composer of the third gospel, and it is, consequently, not possible reasonably to maintain that these sections are additions subsequently made by a different hand, which seems to be the only legitimate course open to those who would deny that marcion's gospel originally contained them. here, then, we find evidence of the existence of our third synoptic about the year , and it may of course be inferred that it must have been composed at least some time before that date. it is important, however, to estimate aright the facts actually before us and the deductions which may be drawn from them. the testimony of marcion does not throw any light upon the authorship or origin of the gospel of which he made use. its superscription was simply: "the gospel," or, "the gospel of the lord" [------],( ) and no author's name was attached to it. the heresiarch did not pretend to have written it himself, nor did he ascribe it to any other person. tertullian, in fact, reproaches him with its anonymity. "and here { } already i might make a stand," he says at the very opening of his attack on marcion's gospel, "contending that a work should not be recognized which does not hold its front erect... which does not give a pledge of its trustworthiness by the fulness of its title, and the due declaration of its author."( ) not only did marcion himself not in any way connect the name of luke with his gospel, but his followers repudiated the idea that luke was its author.( ) in establishing the substantial identity of marcion's gospel and our third synoptic, therefore, no advance is made towards establishing the authorship of luke. the gospel remains anonymous still. on the other hand we ascertain the important fact that, so far from its having any authoritative or infallible character at that time, marcion regarded our synoptic as a work perverted by jewish influences, and requiring to be freely expurgated in the interests of truth.( ) amended by very considerable omissions and alterations, marcion certainly held it in high respect as a record of the teaching of jesus, but beyond this circumstance, and the mere fact of its existence in his day, we learn nothing from the evidence of marcion. it can scarcely be maintained that this does much to authenticate the third synoptic as a record of miracles and a witness for the reality of divine revelation. { } there is no evidence whatever that marcion had any knowledge of the other canonical gospels in any form.( ) none of his writings are extant, and no direct assertion is made even by the fathers that he knew them, although from their dogmatic point of view they assume that these gospels existed from the very first, and therefore insinuate that as he only recognized one gospel, he rejected the rest.( ) when irenæus says: "he persuaded his disciples that he himself was more veracious than were the apostles who handed down the gospel, though he delivered to them not the gospel, but part of the gospel,"( ) it is quite clear that he speaks of the gospel--the good tidings--christianity--and not of specific written gospels. in another passage which is referred to by apologists, irenæus says of the marcionites that they have asserted: "that even the apostles proclaimed the gospel still under the influence of jewish sentiments; but that they themselves are more sound and more judicious than the apostles. wherefore also marcion and his followers have had recourse to mutilating the scriptures, not recognizing some books at all, but curtailing the gospel according to luke and the epistles of paul; these they say are alone authentic which they themselves have abbreviated."( ) { } these remarks chiefly refer to the followers of marcion, and as we have shown, when treating of valentinus, irenæus is expressly writing against members of heretical sects living in his own day and not of the founders of those sects.( ) the marcionites of the time of irenæus no doubt deliberately rejected the gospels, but it does, not by any means follow that marcion himself knew anything of them. as yet we have not met with any evidence even of their existence. the evidence of tertullian is not a whit more valuable. in the passage usually cited, he says: "but marcion, lighting upon the epistle of paul to the gaia-tians, in which he reproaches even apostles for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of christ, tries with all his might to destroy the status of those gospels which are put forth as genuine and under the name of apostles or at least of contemporaries of the apostles, in order, be it known, to confer upon his own the credit which he takes from them."( ) now here again it is clear that tertullian is simply applying, by inference, marcion's views with regard to the preaching of the gospel by the two parties in the church, represented by the apostle paul and the "pillar" apostles whose leaning to jewish doctrines he condemned, to the written gospels recognized in his day though not in marcion's. "it is uncertain," says even canon westcott, { } "whether tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own point of sight."( ) any doubt is, however, removed on examining the context, for tertullian proceeds to argue that if paul censured peter, john and james, it was for changing their company from respect of persons, and similarly, "if false apostles crept in," they betrayed their character by insisting on jewish observances. "so that it was _not on account of their preaching_, but of their conversation that they were pointed out by paul,"( ) and he goes on to argue that if marcion thus accuses apostles of having depraved the gospel by their dissimulation, he accuses christ in accusing those whom christ selected.( ) it is palpable, therefore, that marcion, in whatever he may have written, referred to the preaching of the gospel, or christianity, by apostles who retained their jewish prejudices in favour of circumcision and legal observances, and not to written gospels. tertullian merely assumes, with his usual audacity, that the church had the four gospels from the very first, and therefore that marcion, who had only one gospel, knew the others and deliberately rejected them. { } chapter viii. tatian--dionysius of corinth from marcion we now turn to tatian, another so-called heretic leader. tatian, an assyrian by birth,( ) embraced christianity and became a disciple of justin martyr( ) in rome, sharing with him, as it seems, the persecution excited by crescens the cynic( ) to which justin fell a victim. after the death of justin, tatian, who till then had continued thoroughly orthodox, left rome, and joined the sect of the encratites, of which, however, he was not the founder,( ) and became the leading exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines.( ) the only one of his writings which is still extant is his "oration to the greeks"[------]. this work was written after the death of justin, for in it he refers to that event,( ) and it is generally dated between { } a. d. - . (l) teschendorf does not assert that there is any quotation in this address taken from the synoptic gospels;( ) and canon westcott only affirms that it contains a clear reference" to "a parable recorded by st. matthew," and he excuses the slightness of this evidence by adding: "the absence of more explicit testimony to the books of the new testament is to be accounted for by the style of his writing, and not by his unworthy estimate of their importance."( ) this remark is without foundation, as we know nothing whatever with regard to tatian's estimate of any such books. the supposed "clear reference" is as follows: "for by means of a certain hidden treasure [------] he made himself lord of all that we possess, in digging for which though we were covered with dust, yet we give it the occasion of falling into our hands and abiding with us."( ) this is claimed as a reference to matt. xiii. : "the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden [------] in the field, which a man found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field." so faint a similarity could not prove anything, but it is evident that there are decided differences here. were the probability fifty times greater than it is that tatian had in his mind the parable, which is reported in our first gospel, nothing could be more unwarrantable than the deduction that he must have derived it from our matthew, and not from any other of the numerous gospels which we know to have early been in circulation. ewald ascribes the parable in matthew originally to the "spruchsammlung" or collection of discourses, the second of the four works out of which he considers our first synoptic to have been compiled.( ) as evidence even for the existence of our first canonical gospel, no such anonymous allusion could have the slightest value. although neither tischendorf nor canon westcott think it worth while to refer to it, some apologists claim another passage in the oration as a reference to our third synoptic. "laugh ye: nevertheless you shall weep."( ) this is compared with luke vi. : "woe unto you that laugh now: for ye shall mourn and weep,"( ) here again, it is impossible to trace a reference in the words of tatian specially to our third gospel, and manifestly nothing could be more foolish than to build upon such vague similarity any hypothesis of tatian's acquaintance with luke. if there be one part of the gospel which was more known than another in the first ages of christianity, it was the sermon on the mount, and there can be no doubt that many evangelical works now lost contained versions of it. ewald likewise assigns this passage of luke originally to the spruchsammlung, and no one can doubt that the saying was recorded long before the writer of the third gospel { } undertook to compile evangelical history, as so many had done before him. further on, however, canon westcott says: "it can be gathered from clement of alexandria... that he (tatian) endeavoured to derive authority for his peculiar opinions from the epistles to the corinthians and galatians, and probably from the epistle to the ephesians, and the gospel of st. matthew."( ) the allusion here is to a passage in the stromata of clement, in which reference is supposed by the apologist to be made to tatian. no writer, however, is named, and clement merely introduces his remark by the words: "a certain person," [------] and then proceeds to give his application of the saviour's words "not to treasure upon earth where moth and rust corrupt" [------].( ) the parallel passage in matthew vi. , reads: "lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt," [------]. canon westcott, it is true, merely suggests that "probably" this may be ascribed to tatian, but it is almost absolutely certain that it was not attributed to him by clement. tatian is several times referred to in the course of the same chapter, and his words are continued by the use of [------] or [------], and it is in the highest degree improbable that clement should introduce another quotation from him in such immediate context by the vague and distant reference "a certain person" [------]. on the other hand reference is made in the chapter to on the canon, p. . [in the th edition dr. westcott has altered the "probably" of the above sentence to "perhaps," and in a note has added: "these two last references are from an anonymous citation [------] which has been commonly assigned to tatian." p. , n. .] { } other writers and sects, to one of whom with infinitely greater propriety this expression applies. no weight, therefore, could be attached to any such passage in connection with tatian. moreover the quotation not only does not agree with our synoptic, but may much more probably have been derived from the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) it will be remembered that justin martyr quotes the same passage, with the same omission of "[------]," from a gospel different from our synoptics.( ) tatian, however, is claimed by apologists as a witness for the existence of our gospels--more than this he could not possibly be--principally on the ground that his gospel was called by some diatessaron [------] or "by four," and it is assumed to have been a harmony of four gospels. the work is no longer extant and, as we shall see, our information regarding it is of the scantiest and most unsatisfactory description. critics have arrived at very various conclusions with regard to the composition of the work. some of course affirm, with more or less of hesitation nevertheless, that it was nothing else than a harmony of our four canonical gospels;( ) many of these, however, are constrained to admit that it was also partly based upon the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) some maintain that it was { } a harmony of our three synoptics together with the gospel according to the hebrews;( ) whilst many deny that it was composed of our gospels at all,( ) and either declare it to have been a harmony of the gospel according to the hebrews with three other gospels whose identity cannot be determined, or that it was simply the gospel according to the hebrews itself,( ) by which name, as epiphanius states, it was called by some in his day.( ) tatian's gospel, however, was not only called diatessaron, but, according to victor of capua, it was also called diapente [------] "by five,"( ) a complication which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition. tischendorf, anxious to date tatian's gospel as early as possible, says that in all probability it was composed earlier than the address to the greeks.( ) of this, however, he does not offer any evidence, and upon { } examination it is very evident that the work was, on the contrary, composed or adopted after the oration and his avowal of heretical opinions. theodoret states that tatian had in it omitted the genealogies and all other passages showing that christ was born of david according to the flesh, and he condemned the work, and caused it to be abandoned, on account of its evil design.( ) if the assumption be correct, therefore, as tischendorf maintains, that tatian altered our gospels, and did not merely from the first, like his master justin, make use of gospels different from those which afterwards became canonical, he must have composed the work after the death of justin, up to which time he is stated to have remained quite orthodox.( ) the date may with much greater probability be set between a.d. -- .( ) the earliest writer who mentions tatian's gospel is eusebius,( ) who wrote some century and a half after its supposed composition, without, however, having himself seen the work at all, or being really acquainted with its nature and contents.( ) eusebius says: "tatian, however, their former chief, having put together a certain amalgamation and collection, i know not how, of the gospels, named this the diatessaron, which even now is current with some."( ) { } it is clear that such hearsay information is not to be relied on. neither irenæus, clement of alexandria, nor jerome, who refer to other works of tatian, make any mention of this one. epiphanius, however, does so, but, like eusebius, evidently without having himself seen it.( ) this second reference to tatian's gospel is made upwards of two centuries after its supposed composition. epiphanius says: "it is said that he (tatian) composed the diatessaron, which is called by some the gospel according to the hebrews."( ) it must be observed that it is not said that tatian himself gave this gospel the name of diates-saron,( ) but on the contrary the expression of epiphanius implies that he did not do so,( ) and the fact that it was also called by some the gospel according to the hebrews, and diapente, shows that the work had no superscription from tatian of a contradictory character. theodoret, bishop of cyrus (+ ), is the next writer who mentions tatian's gospel, and he is the only one who had personally seen it he says: "he (tatian) also composed the gospel which is called _diatessaron_, excising the genealogies and all the other parts which declare that the lord was born of the seed of david according to the flesh. this was used not only by those of his own sect, but also by those who held the apostolic doctrines, who did not perceive the evil of the composition, but made use of the book in simplicity on account of its conciseness. i myself found upwards of two hundred such books held in honour among our churches, and collecting them all together, i had them put aside and, instead, introduced the gospels of the four evangelists." again it must be observed that theodoret does not say that the gospel of tatian _was_ a diatessaron, but merely that it was called so [------].( ) after quoting this passage, and that from epiphanius, canon westcott says with an assurance which, considering the nature of the evidence, is singular:--"not only then was the diatessaron grounded on the four canonical gospels, but in its general form it was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity. the heretical character of the book was not evident upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in faults of defect than in erroneous teaching. theodoret had certainly examined it, and he, like earlier writers, regarded it as a compilation from the four gospels. he speaks of omissions which were at least in part natural in a harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions as would have found place in any gospel not derived from canonical sources."( ) now it must be remembered that the evidence regarding tatian's gospel is of the very vaguest description. it is not mentioned by any writer until a century and a half after the date of its supposed on the canon, p. . [in the th edition, the first sentence in the above passage is altered to: "from this statement it is clear that the diatessaron was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity." p. .] { } composition, and then only referred to by eusebius, who had not seen the work, and candidly confesses his ignorance with regard to it, so that a critic who is almost as orthodox as canon westcott himself acknowledges: "for the truth is that we know no more about tatian's work than what eusebius, who never saw it, knew."( ) the only other writer who refers to it, epiphanius, had not seen it either, and while showing that the title of diatessaron had not been given to it by tatian himself, he states the important fact that some called it the gospel according to the hebrews. theodoret, the last writer who mentions it, and of whom dr. donaldson also says: "theodoret's information cannot be depended upon,"( ) not only does not say that it is based upon our four gospels, but, on the contrary, points out that tatian's gospel did not contain the genealogies and passages tracing the descent of jesus through the race of david, which our synoptics possess, and he so much condemned the mischievous design of the work that he confiscated the copies in circulation in his diocese as heretical. canon westcott's assertion that theodoret regarded it as a compilation of our four gospels is most arbitrary. omissions, as he himself points out, are natural to a harmony, and conciseness certainly would be the last quality for which it could have been so highly prized, if every part of the four gospels had been retained. the omission of the parts referred to, which are equally omitted from the canonical fourth gospel, could not have been sufficient to merit the condemnation of the work as heretical, and had tatian's gospel not been different in various respects from our four gospels, such summary treatment would have been totally { } unwarrantable. the statement, moreover, that in place of tatian's gospel, theodoret "introduced the gospels of the four evangelists," seems to indicate that the displaced gospel was not a compilation from them, but a substantially different work. had this not been the case, theodoret would naturally have qualified such an expression. speaking of the difficulty of distinguishing tatian's harmony from others which must, the writer supposes, have been composed in his time, dr. donaldson points out: "and then we must remember that the harmony of tatian was confounded with the gospel according to the hebrews; and it is not beyond the reach of possibility that theodoret should have made some such mistake."( ) that is to say, that the only writer who refers to tatian's gospel who professes to have seen the work is not only "not to be depended on," but may actually have mistaken for it the gospel according to the hebrews. there is, therefore, no authority for saying that tatian's gospel was a harmony of four gospels at all, and the name diatessaron was not only not given by tatian himself to the work, but was probably the usual foregone conclusion of the christians of the third and fourth centuries, that everything in the shape of evangelical literature must be dependent on the gospels adopted by the church. those, however, who called the gospel used by tatian the gospel according to the hebrews must apparently have read the work, and all that we know confirms their conclusion. the gospel was, in point of fact, found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the gospel according to the hebrews was more particularly current.( ) the singular { } fact that the earliest reference to tatian's "harmony," is made a century and a half after its supposed composition, and that no writer before the fifth century had seen the work itself, indeed that only two writers before that period mention it at all, receives its natural explanation in the conclusion that tatian did not compose any harmony at all, but simply made use of the same gospel as his master justin martyr, namely, the gospel according to the hebrews,( ) by which name his gospel had been actually called by those best informed. although theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says in the usual arbitrary manner of early christian writers, that tatian "excised" from his gospel the genealogies and certain passages found in the synoptics, he offers no explanation or proof of his assertion, and the utmost that can be received is that tatian's gospel did not contain them.( ) did he omit them or merely use a gospel which never included them? the latter is the more probable conclusion. neither justin's gospel nor the gospel according to the hebrews contained the genealogies or references to the son of david, and why, as credner suggests, should tatian have taken the trouble to prepare a harmony with these omissions when he already found one such as he desired in justin's gospel? tatian's gospel, like that of his master justin, or the gospel according to the hebrews, was different from, yet nearly related to, our canonical gospels, and as we have already seen, justin's gospel, like tatian's, was considered by many to be a harmony of our gospels.( ) no { } one seems to have seen tatian's "harmony," probably for the very simple reason that there was no such work, and the real gospel used by him was that according to the hebrews, as some distinctly and correctly called it. the name diatessaron is first heard of in a work of the fourth century, when it is naturally given by people accustomed to trace every such work to our four gospels, but as we have clearly seen, there is not up to the time of tatian any evidence even of the existence of three of our gospels, and much less of the four in a collected form. here is an attempt to identify a supposed, but not demonstrated, harmony of gospels whose separate existence has not been heard of. even dr. westcott states that tatian's diatessaron "is apparently the first recognition of a fourfold gospel,"( ) but, as we have seen, that recognition emanates only from a writer of the fourth century who had not seen the work of which he speaks. no such modern ideas, based upon mere foregone conclusions, can be allowed to enter into a discussion regarding a work dating from the time of tatian.( ) the fact that the work found by theodoret in his diocese was used by orthodox christians without dr. lightfoot (contemp. rev., - , p. ) refers to an apocryphal work, "the doctrine of addai," recently edited and published by dr. phillips, in which it is stated that a large multitude assembled daily at edessa for prayer and the reading of the old testament, "and the new of the diatessaron." dr. lightfoot assumes that this is tatian's gospel. even if it were so, however, we cannot discover in this any addition to our information regarding the composition of the work. we have already the fuller statement of theodoret respecting the use of tatian's work in the churches of his diocese, so that beyond an interesting reference, no fresh light is thrown upon the question by the phrase quoted. but we cannot see any ground for asserting that the diatessaron here spoken of was tatian's gospel. on the contrary, it seems perfectly clear that the writer speaks only of the four gospels of the new testament. { } consciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite consistent with the fact that it was the gospel according to the hebrews, which at one time was in very general use, but later gradually became an object of suspicion and jealousy in the church as our canonical gospels took its place. the manner in which theodoret dealt with tatian's gospel, or that "according to the hebrews," recalls the treatment by serapion of another form of the same work: the gospel according to peter. he found that work in circulation and greatly valued amongst the christians of rhossus, and allowed them peaceably to retain it for a time, until, alarmed at the docetic heresy, he more closely examined the gospel, and discovered in it what he considered heretical matter.( ) the gospel according to the hebrews, which narrowly missed a permanent place in the canon of the church, might well seem orthodox to the simple christians of cyrus, yet as different from, though closely related to, the canonical gospels, it would seem heretical to their bishop. as different from the gospels of the four evangelists, it was doubtless suppressed by theodoret with perfect indifference as to whether it were called tatian's gospel or the gospel according to the hebrews. it is obvious that there is no evidence of any value connecting tatian's gospel with those in our canon. we know so little about the work in question, indeed, that as dr. donaldson frankly admits, "we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself."( ) its earlier history is enveloped in obscurity, and as canon westcott observes: "the later history of the diatessaron is { } involved in confusion."( ) we have seen that in the sixth century it was described by victor of capua as diapente, "by five," instead of "by four." it was also confounded with another harmony written, not long after tatian's day, by ammonius of alexandria (+ ). dionysius bar-salibi,( ) a writer of the latter half of the twelfth century, mentions that the syrian ephrem, about the middle of the fourth century, wrote a commentary on the diatessaron of tatian, which diatessaron commenced with the opening words of the fourth gospel: "in the beginning was the word." the statement of bar-salibi, however, is contradicted by gregory bar-hebraeus, bishop of tagrit, who says that ephrem syrus wrote his commentary on the diatessaron of ammonius, and that this diatessaron commenced with the words of the fourth gospel: "in the beginning was the word."( ) the syrian ebed-jesu (+l ) held tatian and ammonius to be one and the same person; and it is probable that dionysius mistook the harmony of ammonius for that of tatian. it is not necessary further to follow this discussion, for it in no way affects our question, and no important deduction can be derived from it.( ) we allude to the point for the mere sake of showing that, up to the last, we have no certain information throwing light on the composition of tatian's gospel. all that we do know of it,--what it did not contain--the places where it largely circulated, and the name by which it was { } called, tends to identify it with the gospel according to the hebrews. for the rest, tatian had no idea of a new testament canon, and evidently did not recognize as inspired, any scriptures except those of the old testament.( ) it is well known that the sect of the encratites made use of apocryphal gospels until a much later period, and rejected the authority of the apostle paul, and tatian himself is accused of repudiating some of the pauline epistles, and of altering and mutilating others.( ) . dionysius of corinth need not detain us long. eusebius informs us that he was the author of seven epistles addressed to various christian communities, and also of a letter to chrysophora, "a most faithful sister." eusebius speaks of these writings as catholic epistles, and briefly characterizes each, but with the exception of a few short fragments preserved by him, none of these fruits of the "inspired industry" [------] of dionysius are now extant.( ) these fragments are all from an epistle said to have been addressed to soter, bishop of rome, and give us a clue to the time at which they were written. the bishopric of soter is generally dated between a.d. -- ,( ) during which years the epistle must have been composed. it could not have { } been written, however, until after dionysius became bishop of corinth in a.d. ,( ) and it was probably written some years after.( ) no quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the new testament occurs in any of the fragments of the epistles still extant; nor does eusebius make mention of any such reference in the epistles which have perished. as testimony for our gospels, therefore, dionysius is an absolute blank. some expressions and statements, however, are put forward by apologists which we must examine. in the few lines which tischendorf accords to dionysius he refers to two of these. the first is an expression used, not by dionysius himself, but by eusebius, in speaking of the epistles to the churches at amastris and at pontus. eusebius says that dionysius adds some "expositions of divine scriptures" [------].( ) there can be no doubt, we think, that this refers to the old testament only, and tischendorf himself does not deny it.( ) the second passage which tischendorf( ) points out, and which he claims with some other apologists as evidence of the actual existence of a new testament canon when dionysius wrote, occurs in a fragment from the epistle { } to soter and the romans which is preserved by eusebius. it is as follows: "for the brethren having requested me to write epistles, i wrote them. and the apostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking away parts and adding others; for whom the woe is destined. it is not surprising then if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate the scriptures of the lord [------] when they have formed designs against these which are not of such importance."( ) regarding this passage, canon westcott, with his usual boldness, says: "it is evident that the 'scriptures of the lord'--the writings of the new testament--were at this time collected, that they were distinguished from other books, that they were jealously guarded, that they had been corrupted for heretical purposes."( ) we have seen, however, that there has not been a trace of any new testament canon in the writings of the fathers before and during this age, and it is not permissible to put such an interpretation upon the remark of dionysius. dr. donaldson, with greater critical justice and reserve, remarks regarding the expression "scriptures of the on the canon, p. . dr. westcott, in the first instance, translates the expression: [------] "the scriptures of the new testament." in a note to his fourth edition, however, he is kind enough to explain: "of course it is not affirmed that the collection here called [------] was identical with our 'new testament,' but simply that the phrase shows that a collection of writings belonging to the new testament existed," p. , n. . such a translation, in such a work, assuming as it does the whole question, and concealing what is doubtful, is most unwarrantable. the fact is that not only is there no mention of the new testament at all, but the words as little necessarily imply a "collection" of writings as they do a "collection" of the epistles of dionyaius. { } lord:" "it is not easy to settle what this term means," although he adds his own personal opinion, "but most probably it refers to the gospels as containing the sayings and doings of the lord. it is not likely, as lardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of the new testament"( ) the idea of our collected new testament being referred to is of course quite untenable, and although it is open to argument that dionysius may have referred to evangelical works, it is obvious that there are no means of proving the fact, and much less that he referred specially to our gospels. in fact, the fragments of dionysius present no evidence whatever of the existence of our synoptics. in order further to illustrate the inconclusiveness of the arguments based upon so vague an expression, we may add that it does not of necessity apply to any gospels or works of christian history at all, and may with perfect propriety have indicated the scriptures of the old testament. we find justin martyr complaining in the same spirit as dionysius, through several chapters, that the old testament scriptures, and more especially those relating to the lord, had been adulterated, that parts had been taken away, and others added, with the intention of destroying or weakening their application to christ.( ) justin's argument throughout is, that the whole of the old testament scriptures refer to christ, and tryphon, his antagonist, the representative of jewish opinion, is made to avow that the jews not only wait for christ, but, he adds: "we admit that all the scriptures which you have cited refer to him."( ) not only, therefore, were the scriptures of the old testament { } closely connected with their lord by the fathers and, at the date of which we are treating, were the only "holy scriptures" recognised, but they made the same complaints which we meet with in dionysius that these scriptures were adulterated by omissions and interpolations.( ) the expression of eusebius regarding "expositions of divine scriptures" [------] added by dionysius, which applied to the old testament, tends to connect the old testament also with this term "scriptures of the lord." if the term "scriptures of the lord," however, be referred to gospels, the difficulty of using it as evidence continues undiminished. we have no indication of the particular evangelical works which were in the bishop's mind. we have seen that other gospels were used by the fathers, and in exclusive circulation amongst various communities, and even until much later times many works were regarded by them as divinely inspired which have no place in our canon. the gospel according to the hebrews for instance was probably used by some at least of the apostolic fathers,( ) by pseudo-ignatius,( ) polycarp,( ) papias,( ) hegesippus,( ) justin martyr,( ) and at least employed along with our gospels by clement of alexandria, origen, and jerome.( ) the fact that serapion, in the third century allowed the gospel of peter to be used in the church of rhossus( ) shows at the same time the consideration in which it was held, and the incompleteness of the canonical position of the new testament writings. so does the circumstance this charge is made with insistance throughout the clementine homilies. { } that in the fifth century theodoret found the gospel according to the hebrews, or tatians gospel, widely circulated and held in honour amongst orthodox churches in his diocese.( ) the pastor of hermas, which was read in the churches and nearly secured a permanent place in the canon, was quoted as inspired by irenæus.( ) the epistle of barnabas was held in similar honour, and quoted as inspired by clement of alexandria( ) and by origen,( ) as was likewise the epistle of the roman clement. the apocalypse of peter was included by clement of alexandria in his account of the canonical scriptures and those which are disputed, such as the epistle of jude and the other catholic epistles,( ) and it stands side by side with the apocalypse of john in the canon of muratori, being long after publicly read in the churches of palestine.( ) tischendorf indeed conjectures that a blank in the codex sinaiticus after the new testament was formerly filled by it. justin, clement of alexandria, and lactantius quote the sibylline books as the word of god, and pay similar honour to the book of hystaspes.( ) so great indeed was the consideration and use of the sibylline books in the church of the second and third centuries, that christians from that fact were nicknamed sibyllists.( ) it is unnecessary to multiply, as justin, apol., i. , ; clem. al., strom., vi. , §§ , ; ladantius, instit. div., i. , , vii. , . clement of alexandria quotes with perfect faith and seriousness some apocryphal book, in which, he says, the apostle paul recommends the hellenic books, the sibyl and the books of hystaspes, as giving notably clear prophetic descriptions of the son of god. strom., vi. , § , . { } might so easily be done, these illustrations; it is too well known that a vast number of gospels and similar works, which have been excluded from the canon, were held in the deepest veneration by the church in the second century, to which the words of dionysius may apply. so vague and indefinite an expression at any rate is useless as evidence for the existence of our canonical gospels. canon westcott's deduction from the words of dionysius, that not only were the writings of the new testament already collected, but that they were "jealously guarded," is imaginative indeed. it is much and devoutly to be wished that they had been as carefully guarded as he supposes, but it is well known that this was not the case, and that numerous interpolations have been introduced into the text. the whole history of the canon and of christian literature in the second and third centuries displays the most deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment on the part of the fathers. "whatever was considered as conducive to christian edification was blindly adopted by them, and a vast number of works were launched into circulation and falsely ascribed to apostles and others likely to secure for them greater consideration. such pious fraud was rarely suspected, still more rarely detected in the early ages of christianity, and several of such pseudographs have secured a place in our new testament. the words of dionysius need not receive any wider signification than a reference to well-known epistles. it is clear from the words attributed to the apostle paul in thess. ii. , iii. , that his epistles were falsified, and setting aside some of those which bear his name in our canon, spurious epistles were long { } ascribed to him, such as the epistle to the laodiceans and a third epistle to the corinthians. we need not do more than allude to the second epistle falsely bearing the name of clement of rome, as well as the clementine homilies and recognitions, the apostolical constitutions, and the spurious letters of ignatius, the letters and legend of abgarus quoted by eusebius, and the epistles, of paul and seneca, in addition to others already pointed out, as instances of the wholesale falsification of that period, many of which gross forgeries were at once accepted as genuine by the fathers, so slight was their critical faculty and so ready their credulity.( ) in one case the church punished the author who, from mistaken zeal for the honour of the apostle paul, fabricated the _acta pauli et theclæ_ in his name,( ) but the forged production was not the less made use of in the church. there was, therefore, no lack of falsification and adulteration of works of apostles and others of greater note than himself to warrant the remark of dionysius, without any forced application of it to our gospels or to a new testament canon, the existence of which there is nothing to substantiate, but on the contrary every reason to discredit. before leaving this passage we may add that although even tischendorf does not, canon westcott does find in it references to our first synoptic, and to the apocalypse. "the short fragment just quoted," he says, "contains two obvious allusions, one to the gospel of st matthew, and one to the apocalypse."( ) the words: "the apostles of the devil have filled these with tares," are, he supposes, the epistle of jude quotes as genuine the assumption of moses, and also the book of enoch, and the defence of the authenticity of the latter by tertullian (de cultu fem., i. ) will not be forgotten. { } an allusion to matt. xiii. ff. but even if the expression were an echo of the parable of the wheat and tares, it is not permissible to refer it in this arbitrary way to our first gospel, to the exclusion of the numerous other works which existed, many of which doubtless contained it obviously the words have no evidential value. continuing his previous assertions, however, canon westcott affirms with equal boldness: "the allusion in the last clause"--to the "scriptures of the lord"--"will be clear when it is remembered that dionysius 'warred against the heresy of marcion and defended the rule of truth '" [------].( ) tischendorf, who is ready enough to strain every expression into evidence, recognizes too well that this is not capable of such an interpretation. dr. westcott omits to mention that the words, moreover, are not used by dionysius at all, but simply proceed from eusebius.( ) dr. donaldson distinctly states the fact that, "there is no reference to the bible in the words of eusebius: he defends the rule of the truth "( ) [------]. there is only one other point to mention. canon westcott refers to the passage in the epistle of dionysius, which has already been quoted in this work regarding the reading of christian writings in churches. "today," he writes to soter, "we have kept the lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle, from the reading of which we shall ever derive admonition, as we do from the former one written to us by clement."( ) it is evident that there was no idea, in selecting the works to be read at the weekly assembly of christians, of any { } canon of a new testament. we here learn that the epistles of clement and of soter were habitually read, and while we hear of this, and of the similar reading of justin's "memoirs of the apostles,"( ) of the pastor of hermas,( ) of the apocalypse of peter,( ) and other apocryphal works, we do not at the same time hear of the public reading of our gospels. { } chapter ix. melito of sardis--claudius apollinaris--athenagoras--the epistle of vienne and lyons. we might here altogether have passed over melito, bishop of sardis in lydia, had it not been for the use of certain fragments of his writings made by canon westcott. melito, naturally, is not cited by tischendorf at all, but the english apologist, with greater zeal, we think, than critical discretion, forces him into service as evidence for the gospels and a new testament canon. the date of melito, it is generally agreed, falls after a.d. , a phrase in his apology presented to marcus antoninus preserved in eusebius(l) [------] indicating that commodus had already been admitted to a share of the government.( ) canon westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved by eusebius, melito speaks of the books of the new testament in a collected form. he says: "the words of melito on the other hand are simple and casual, and yet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. he writes to onesimus, a fellow-christian who had urged him 'to { } make selections for him from the law and the prophets concerning the saviour and the faith generally, and furthermore desired to learn the accurate account of the old [------] books;' 'having gone therefore to the east,' melito says, 'and reached the spot where [each thing] was preached and done, and having learned accurately the books of the old testament, i have sent a list of them.' the mention of 'the old books'--'the books of the old testament,' naturally implies a definite new testament, a written antitype to the old; and the form of language implies a familiar recognition of its contents."( ) this is truly astonishing! the "form of language" can only refer to the words: "concerning the saviour and the faith generally," which must have an amazing fulness of meaning to convey to canon west-cott the implication of a "familiar recognition" of the contents of a supposed already collected new testament, seeing that a simple christian, not to say a bishop, might at least know of a saviour and the faith generally from the oral preaching of the gospel, from a single epistle of paul, or from any of the [------] of luke. this reasoning forms a worthy pendant to his argument that because melito speaks of the books of the old testament he implies the existence of a definite collected new testament. such an assertion is calculated to mislead a large class of readers.( ) the fragment of melito is as follows: "melito to his on the canon, p. . [in the fourth edition dr. westcott omits the last phrase, making a full stop at "old." p. .] it must be said, however, that canon westcott merely follows and exaggerates lardner, here, who says: "from this passage i would conclude that there was then also a volume or collection of books called the new testament, containing the writings of apostles and apostolical men, but we cannot from hence infer the names or the exact number of those books." credibility, &c., works, ii. p. . { } brother onesimus, greeting. as thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal for the word [------] to have extracts made for thee, both from the law and the prophets concerning the saviour and our whole faith; nay, more, hast wished to learn the exact statement of the old books [------], how many they are and what is their order, i have earnestly endeavoured to accomplish this, knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire to be informed concerning the word [------], and especially that thou preferrest these matters to all others from love towards god, striving to gain eternal salvation. having, therefore, gone to the east, and reached the place where this was preached and done, and having accurately ascertained the books of the old testament [------], i have, subjoined, sent a list of them unto thee, of which these are the names"--then follows a list of the books of the old testament, omitting, however, esther. he then concludes with the words: "of these i have made the extracts dividing them into six books."( ) canon westcott's assertion that the expression "old books," "books of the old testament," involves here by antithesis a definite _written_ new testament, requires us to say a few words as to the name of "testament" as applied to both divisions of the bible. it is of course well known that this word came into use originally from the translation of the hebrew word "covenant" [------], or compact made between god and the israelites,( ) in the septuagint version, by the greek word [------], which in a legal sense also means a will or testament,( ) and that word is adopted throughout the new the legal sense of [------] as a will or testament is distinctly intended in heb. ix. . "for where a testament [------] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator" [------]. the same word [------] is employed throughout the whole passage. heb. ix. -- . { } testament.(l) the vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original hebrew signification, translated the word in the gospels and epistles, "testamentum" and [------] became "vetus testamentum" instead of "vetus foedus" and whenever the word occurs in the english version it is almost invariably rendered "testament" instead of covenant. the expression "book of the covenant," or "testament," [------], frequently occurs in the lxx version of the old testament and its apocrypha,( ) and in jeremiah xxxi. - ,( ) the prophet speaks of making a "new covenant" [------] with the house of israel, which is indeed quoted in hebrews viii. . it is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through christ confirming the former one made to the israelites, which has led to the distinction of the old and new testaments. generally the old testament was, in the first ages of christianity, indicated by the simple expressions "the books" [------], "holy scriptures" [------],( ) or "the scriptures" [------,( ) but the preparation for the distinction of "old testament" began very early in the development of the doctrinal idea of the new testament of christ, before there was any part of the new testament books written at all. the expression "new testament," derived thus { } antithetically from the "old testament," occurs constantly throughout the second part of the bible. in the epistle to the hebrews viii. - , the mosaic dispensation is contrasted with the christian, and jesus is called the mediator of a better testament [------].( ) the first testament not being faultless, is replaced by the second, and the writer quotes the passage from jeremiah to which we have referred regarding a new testament, winding up his argument with the words, v. : "in that he saith a new (testament) he hath made the first old." again, in our first gospel, during the last supper, jesus is represented as saying: "this is my blood of the new testament" [------];( ) and in luke he says: "this cup is the new testament [------] in my blood."( ) there is, therefore, a very distinct reference made to the two testaments as "new" and "old," and in speaking of the books of the law and the prophets as the "old books" and "books of the old testament," after the general acceptance of the gospel of jesus as the new testament or covenant, there was no antithetical implication whatever of a written new testament, but a mere reference to the doctrinal idea. we might multiply illustrations showing how ever-present to the mind of the early church was the contrast of the mosaic and christian covenants as old and new. two more we may venture to point out. in romans ix. , and gal. iv. , the two testaments or covenants [------], typified by sinai and the heavenly jerusalem, are discussed, and the superiority of the latter asserted. there is, however, a passage, still more clear and decisive. paul says in corinthians iii. : "who also (god) made us sufficient to be ministers of the new { } testament [------] not of the letter, but of the spirit" [------]. why does not canon westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite written new testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but a distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which an apologist might make a telling argument? but proceeding to contrast the glory of the new with the old dispensation, the apostle, in reference to the veil with which moses covered his face, says: "but their understandings were hardened: for until this very day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the old testament" [------];(l ) and as if to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: "but even unto this day when moses is read, the veil lieth upon their heart." now here the actual reading of the _old_ testament [------] is distinctly mentioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of melito, "implies a definite new testament, a written antitype to the old," but even canon westcott would not dare to suggest that, when the second epistle to the corinthians was composed, there was a "definite written new testament" in existence. this conclusively shows that the whole argument from melito's mention of the books of the old testament is absolutely groundless. on the contrary, canon westcott should know very well that the first general designation for the new testament collection was "the gospel" [------] and "the apostle" [------], for the two portions of the collection, in contrast with the divisions of the old testament, the law and the prophets [------] { } [------],( ) and the name new testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when tertullian called the collection of christian scriptures _novum instrumentum and novum testamentum._( ) the term [------] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the greek to the "new testament" collection in any earlier work than origen's _de principiis_, iv. . it was only in the second half of the third century that the double designation [------] was generally abandoned.( ) as to the evidence for a new testament canon, which dr. westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded inference from melito's expression, we may judge of its value from the fact that he himself, like lardner, admits: "but there is little evidence in the fragment of melito to show what writings he would have included in the new collection."( ) little evidence? there is none at all. there is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment to which canon westcott does not in any way refer, but which well merits attention as { } illustrating the state of religious knowledge at that time, and, by analogy, giving a glimpse of the difficulties which beset early christian literature. we are told by melito that onesimus had frequently urged him to give him exact information as to the number and order of the books of the old testament, and to have extracts made for him from them concerning the saviour and the faith. now it is apparent that melito, though a bishop, was not able to give the desired information regarding the number and order of the books of the old testament himself, but that he had to make a journey to collect it. if this was the extent of knowledge possessed by the bishop of sardis of what was to the fathers the only holy scripture, how ignorant his flock must have been, and how unfitted, both, to form any critical judgment as to the connection of christianity with the mosaic dispensation. the formation of a christian canon at a period when such ignorance was not only possible but generally prevailed, and when the zeal of believers led to the composition of such a mass of pseudonymic and other literature, in which every consideration of correctness and truth was subordinated to a childish desire for edification, must have been slow indeed and uncertain; and in such an age fortuitous circumstances must have mainly led to the canonization or actual loss of many a work. so far from affording any evidence of the existence of a new testament canon, the fragment of melito only shows the ignorance of the bishop of sardis as to the canon even of the old testament. we have not yet finished with melito in connection with canon westcott, however, and it is necessary to follow him further in order fully to appreciate the nature of the evidence for the new testament canon, which, in default { } of better, he is obliged to offer. eusebius gives a list of the works of melito which have come to his knowledge, and in addition to the fragment already quoted, he extracts a brief passage from melito's work on the passover, and some much longer quotations from his apology, to which we have in passing referred.( ) with these exceptions, none of melito's writings are now extant. dr. cureton, however, has published a syriac version, with translation, of a so-called "oration of meliton, the philosopher, who was in the presence of antoninus caesar," together with five other fragments attributed to melito.( ) with regard to this syriac oration, canon westcott says: "though if it be entire, it is not the apology with which eusebius was acquainted, the general character of the writing leads to the belief that it is a genuine book of melito of sardis;"( ) and he proceeds to treat it as authentic. in the first place, we have so little of melito's genuine compositions extant, that it is hazardous indeed to draw any positive deduction from the "character of the writing." cureton, bunsen, and others maintain that this apology is not a fragment, and it cannot be the work mentioned by eusebius, for it does not contain the quotations from the authentic orations which he has preserved, and which are considerable. it is, however, clear from the substance of the composition that it cannot have been spoken before the emperor,( ) and, moreover, it has in no way the character of an "apology," for there is not a single word in it about either christianity or christians. there is { } every reason to believe that it is not a genuine work of melito.( ) there is no ground whatever for supposing that he wrote two apologies, nor is this ascribed to him upon any other ground than the inscription of an unknown syriac writer. this, however, is not the only spurious work attributed to melito. of this work canon westcott says: "like other apologies, this oration contains only indirect references to the christian scriptures. the allusions in it to the gospels are extremely rare, and except so far as they show the influence of st. john's writings, of no special interest."( ) it would have been more correct to have said that there are no allusions in it to the gospels at all. canon westcott is somewhat enthusiastic in speaking of melito and his literary activity as evinced in the titles of his works recorded by eusebius, and he quotes a fragment, said to be from a treatise "on faith," amongst these syriac remains, and which he considers to be "a very striking expansion of the early historic creed of the church."( ) as usual, we shall give the entire fragment: "we have made collections from the law and the prophets relative to those things which have been declared respecting our lord jesus christ, that we may prove to your love that he is perfect reason, the word of god; who was begotten before the light; who was creator together with the father; who was the fashioner of man; who was all in all; who among the patriarchs was patriarch; who in the law was the law; among the priests chief priest; among kings governor; among the prophets the prophet; { } among the angels archangel; in the voice the word; among spirits spirit; in the father the son; in god god the king for ever and ever. for this was he who was pilot to noah; who conducted abraham; who was bound with isaac; who was in exile with jacob; who was sold with joseph; who was captain with moses; who was the divider of the inheritance with jesus the son of nun; who in david and the prophets foretold his own sufferings; who was incarnate in the virgin; who was born at bethlehem; who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger; who was seen of shepherds; who was glorified of angels; who was worshipped by the magi; who was pointed out by john; who assembled the apostles; who preached the kingdom; who healed the maimed; who gave light to the blind; who raised the dead; who appeared in the temple; who was not believed by the people; who was betrayed by judas; who was laid hold of by the priests; who was condemned by pilate; who was pierced in the flesh; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the dead; who appeared to the apostles; who ascended to heaven; who sitteth on the right hand of the father; who is the rest of those who are departed; the recoverer of those who are lost; the light of those who are in darkness; the deliverer of those who are captives; the finder of those who have gone astray; the refuge of the afflicted; the bridegroom of the church; the charioteer of the cherubim; the captain of the angels; god who is of god; the son who is of the father; jesus christ, the king for ever and ever. amen."(l) { } canon westcott commences his commentary upon this passage with the remark: "no writer could state the fundamental truths of christianity more unhesitatingly, or quote the scriptures of the old and new testaments with more perfect confidence."( ) we need not do more than remark that there is not a single quotation in the fragment, and that there is not a single one of the references to gospel history or to ecclesiastical dogmas which might not have been derived from the epistles of paul, from any of the forms of the gospel according to the hebrews, the protevangelium of james, or from many another apocryphal gospel, or the oral teaching of the church. it is singular, however, that the only hint which canon westcott gives of the more than doubtful authenticity of this fragment consists of the introductory remark, after alluding to the titles of his genuine and supposititious writings: "of these multifarious writings very few fragments remain in the original greek, but the general tone of them is so decided in its theological character as to go far to establish the genuineness of those which are preserved in the syriac translation."( ) now, the fragment "on faith" which has just been quoted is one of the five syriac pieces of dr. cureton to which we have referred, and which even apologists agree "cannot be regarded as genuine."( ) it is well known that there were other writers in the early church bearing the names of melito and miletius or meletius,( ) { } which were frequently confounded. of these five syriac fragments one bears the superscription: "of meliton, bishop of the city of attica," and another, "of the holy meliton, bishop of utica," and cureton himself evidently leant to the opinion that they are not by our melito, but by a meletius or melitius, bishop of sebastopolis in pontus.( ) the third fragment is said to be taken from a discourse "on the cross," which was unknown to eusebius, and from its doctrinal peculiarities was probably written after his time.( ) another fragment purports to be from a work on the "soul and body;" and the last one from the treatise "on faith," which we are discussing. the last two works are mentioned by eusebius, but these fragments, besides coming in such suspicious company, must for other reasons be pronounced spurious.( ) they have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the syriac translator, who is unknown, and which therefore is worthless, and, on the other hand, the whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything else of melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of theological development.( ) moreover, in the mechitarist library at venice there is a shorter version of the same passage in a syriac ms., and an armenian version of the extract as given above, with some variation of the opening lines, in both of which the passage is distinctly ascribed to irenæus.( ) besides the oration and the five syriac fragments, we have other two works extant falsely attributed to melito, one, "de transitu virginis mariæ," describing the miraculous presence of the apostles at the { } death of mary;( ) and the other, "de actibus joannis apostoli," relates the history of miracles performed by the apostle john. both are universally admitted to be spurious,( ) as are a few other fragments also bearing his name. melito did not escape from the falsification to which many of his more distinguished predecessors and contemporaries were victims, through the literary activity and unscrupulous religious zeal of the first three or four centuries of our era. . very little is known regarding claudius apollinaris to whom we must now for a moment turn. eusebius informs us that he was bishop of hierapolis,( ) and in this he is supported by the fragment of a letter of serapion bishop of antioch preserved to us by him, which refers to apollinaris as the "most blessed."( ) tischendorf, without any precise date, sets him down as contemporary with tatian and theophilus (the latter of whom, he thinks, wrote his work addressed to autolycus about a.d. -- ).( ) eusebius( ) mentions that, like his somewhat earlier contemporary melito of sardis, apollinaris presented an "apology" to the emperor marcus antoninus, and he gives us further materials for a date( ) by stating that claudius apollinaris, probably in his apology, refers to it is worthy of remark that the virgin is introduced into all these fragments in a manner quite foreign to the period at which melito lived. eusebius himself sets him down in his chronicle as flourishing in the eleventh year of marcus, or a.d. , a year later than he dates melito. { } the miracle of the "thundering legion," which is said to have occurred during the war of marcus antoninus against the marcomanni in a.d. .( ) the date of his writings may, therefore, with moderation be fixed between a.d. -- .( ) eusebius and others mention various works composed by him,( ) none of which, however, are extant; and we have only to deal with two brief fragments in connection with the paschal controversy, which are ascribed to apollinaris in the paschal chronicle of alexandria. this controversy, as to the day upon which the christian passover should be celebrated, broke out about a.d. , and long continued to divide the church.( ) in the preface to the paschal chronicle, a work of the seventh century, the unknown chronicler says: "now even apollinaris, the most holy bishop of hiera-polis, in asia, who lived near apostolic times, taught the like things in his work on the passover, saying thus: 'there are some, however, who through ignorance raise contentions regarding these matters in a way which eusebius, h. e., v. ; mosheim, inst. hist. ecclee., book i. cent. ii. part. i. ch. i. § . apollinaris states that in consequence of this miracle, the emperor had bestowed upon the legion the name of the "thundering legion." we cannot here discuss this subject, but the whole story illustrates the rapidity with which a fiction is magnified into truth by religious zeal, and is surrounded by false circumstantial evidence. cf. tertullian, apol. , ad scapulam, ; dion cassius, lib. ; scaliyer, animadv. in euseb., p. f.; cf. donaldson, hist. chr. lit. and doctr., iii. p. f. { } should be pardoned, for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction. and they say that the lord, together with his disciples, ate the sheep [------] on the th nisan, but himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread. and they state [------] that matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their understanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them the gospels seem to contradict each other.'"( ) the last sentence is interpreted as pointing out that the first synoptic gospel is supposed to be at variance with our fourth gospel. this fragment is claimed by teschendorf( ) and others as evidence of the general acceptance at that time both of the synoptics and the fourth gospel. canon westcott, with obvious exaggeration, says: "the gospels are evidently quoted as books certainly known and recognized; their authority is placed on the same footing as the old testament.:( ) the gospels are referred to merely for the settlement of the historical fact as to the day on which the last passover had been eaten, a narrative of which they contained. there are, however, very grave reasons for doubting the authenticity of the two fragments ascribed to { } apollinaris, and we must mention that these doubts are much less those of german critics, who, on the whole, either do not raise the question at all, or hastily dispose of it, than doubts entertained by orthodox apologists, who see little ground for accepting them as genuine.( ) eusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of apol-linaris which had reached him,( ) was evidently not acquainted with any writing of his on the passover. it is argued, however, that "there is not any sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of these fragments 'on easter,' in the fact that eusebius mentions no such book by apollinaris."( ) it is quite true that eusebius does not pretend to give a complete list of these works, but merely says that there are many preserved by many, and that he mentions those with which he had met.( ) at the same time, entering with great interest, as he does, into the paschal controversy, and acquainted with the principal writings on the subject,( ) it would indeed have been strange had he not met with the work itself, or at least with some notice of it in the works of others. eusebius gives an account of the writings of melito and apollinaris together. he was acquainted with the work of melito on the passover, and quotes it,( ) and it is extremely improbable that he could have been ignorant of a treatise by his distinguished contemporary westcott, on the canon, p. , note ; cf. baur, unters. kan. evv., p. f. this is the only remark which dr. westcott makes as to any doubt of the authenticity of these fragments. tischendorf does not mention a doubt at all. { } on the same subject, had he actually written one. not only, however, does eusebius seem to know nothing of his having composed such a work, but neither do theodoret,( ) jerome,( ) nor photius,( ) who refer to his writings, mention it; and we cannot suppose that it was referred to in the lost works of irenæus or clement of alexandria on the passover. eusebius, who quotes from them,( ) would in that case have probably mentioned the fact, as he does the statement by clement regarding melito's work, or at least would have been aware of the existence of such a writing, and alluded to it when speaking of the works of apollinaris. this silence is equally significant whether we regard apollinaris as a quartodeciman or as a supporter of the views of victor and the church of rome. on the one hand, eusebius states that "all the churches of asia"( ) kept the th nisan, and it is difficult to believe that, had apollinaris differed from this practice and, more especially, had he written against it, the name of so eminent an exception would not have been mentioned. the views of the bishop of hierapolis, as a prominent representative of the asiatic church, must have been quoted in many controversial works on the subject, and even if the writing itself had not come into their hands, eusebius and others could scarcely fail to become indirectly acquainted with it. on the other hand, supposing apollinaris to have been a quartodeciman, whilst the ignorance of eusebius and others regarding any contribution by him to the discussion is scarcely less remarkable, it is still more surprising that no allusion is made to { } him by polycrates( ) when he names so many less distinguished men of asia, then passed away, who kept the th nisan, such as thaseas of eumenia, sagoris of laodicea, papirius of sardis, and the seven bishops of his kindred, not to mention polycarp of smyrna and the apostles philip and john. he also cites melito of sardis: why does he not refer to apollinaris of hierapolis? if it be argued that he was still living, then why does eusebius not mention him amongst those who protested against the measures of victor of rome?( ) there has been much discussion as to the view taken by the writer of these fragments, hilgenfeld and others( ) maintaining that he is opposed to the quartodeciman party. into this it is not necessary for us to enter, as our contention simply is that in no case can the authenticity of the fragments be established. supposing them, however, to be directed against those who kept the th nisan, how can it be credited that this isolated convert to the views of victor and the roman church, could write of so vast and distinguished a majority of the churches of asia, including polycarp and melito, as "some who through ignorance raised contentions" on the point, when they really raised no new contention at all, but, as polycrates represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their fathers, and authorized by the practice of the apostle john himself? none of his contemporaries nor writers about his own time seem to have known that apollinaris wrote any work from which these fragments can have been taken, and there is absolutely no independent evidence that he { } ever took any part in the paschal controversy at all. the only ground we have for attributing these fragments to him is the preface to the paschal chronicle of alexandria, written by an unknown author of the seventh century, some five hundred years after the time of apollinaris, whose testimony has rightly been described as "worth almost nothing."( ) most certainly many passages preserved by him are inauthentic, and generally allowed to be so.( ) the two fragments have by some been conjecturally ascribed to pierius of alexandria,( ) a writer of the third century, who composed a work on easter, but there is no evidence on the point in any case, there is such exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to claudius apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot have written them, that they have no material value as evidence for the antiquity of the gospels. . we know little or nothing of athenagoras. he is not mentioned by eusebius, and our only information regarding him is derived from a fragment of philip sidetes, a writer of the fifth century, first published by dr. donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the chronicle ascribed to melito, "unquestionably spurious." hist. chr. lit. and doctr., iii. p. . { } dodwell.( ) philip states that he was the first leader of the school of alexandria during the time of hadrian and antoninus, to the latter of whom he addressed his apology, and he further says that clement of alexandria was his disciple, and that pantsenus was the disciple of clement. part of this statement we know to be erroneous, and the christian history of philip, from which the fragment is taken, is very slightingly spoken of both by socrates( ) and photius.( ) no reliance can be placed upon this information.( ) the only works ascribed to athenagoras are an apology--called an embassy, [------]--bearing the inscription: "the embassy of athenagoras the athenian, a philosopher and a christian, concerning christians, to the emperors marcus aurelius antoninus and lucius aurelius commodus, armeniaci sarmatici and, above all, philosophers"; and further, a treatise: "on the resurrection of the dead," a quotation from the apology by methodius in his work on the resurrection of the body, is preserved by epiphanius( ) and photius,( ) and this, the mention by philip sidetes, and the inscription by an unknown hand, just quoted, are all the evidence we possess regarding the apology. we have no evidence at all regarding the treatise on the resurrection, beyond the inscription. the authenticity of neither, therefore, stands on very sure grounds.( ) the address of the apology and internal evidence furnished by it, into which we need not go, show that it could not { } have been written before a.d. -- , the date assigned to it by most critics,( ) although there are many reasons for dating it some years later. in the six lines which tischendorf devotes to athenagoras, he says that the apology contains "several quotations from matthew and luke,"( ) without, however, indicating them. in the very few sentences which canon westcott vouchsafes to him, he says: "athenagoras quotes the words of our lord as they stand in st. matthew four times, and appears to allude to passages in st. mark and st. john, but he nowhere mentions the name of an evangelist."( ) here the third synoptic is not mentioned. in another place he says: "athenagoras at athens, and theophilus at antioch, make use of the same books generally, and treat them with the same respect;" and in a note: "athenagoras quotes the gospels of st matthew and st. john."( ) here it will be observed that also the gospel of mark is quietly dropped out of sight, but still the positive manner in which it is asserted that athenagoras quotes from "the gospel of st. matthew," without further explanation, is calculated to mislead. we shall refer to each of the supposed quotations. athenagoras not only does not mention any gospel, but singularly enough he never once introduces the { } name of "christ" into the works ascribed to him, and all the "words of the lord" referred to are introduced simply by the indefinite "he says," [------], and without any indication whatever of a written source.( ) the only exception to this is an occasion on which he puts into the mouth of "the logos" a saying which is not found in any of our gospels. the first passage to which canon westcott alludes is the following, which we contrast with the supposed parallel in the gospel:-- [------] it is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference in language conveying a similar idea than that which exists between athenagoras and the first gospel, and the parallel passage in luke is in many respects still more distant. no echo of the words in matthew has lingered in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology throughout, and nothing can be more certain { } than the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our synoptics. the next passage which is referred to is as follows: [------] the same idea is continued in the next chapter, in which the following passage occurs: [------] there is no parallel at all in the first gospel to the phrase "and lend to them that lend to you," and in luke vi. , the passage reads: "and if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?" { } [------]; it is evident, therefore, that there are decided variations here, and that the passage of athenagoras does not agree with either of the synoptics. we have seen the persistent variation in the quotations from the "sermon on the mount" which occur in justin,( ) and there is no part of the discourses of jesus more certain to have been preserved by living christian tradition, or to have been recorded in every form of gospel. the differences in these passages from our synoptic present the same features as mark the several versions of the same discourse in our first and third gospels, and indicate a distinct source. the same remarks also apply to the next passage: [------] the omission of [------], "with her," is not accidental, but is an important variation in the sense, which we have already met with in the gospel used by justin martyr.( ) there is another passage, in the next chapter, the parallel to which follows closely on this in the great sermon as reported in our first gospel, to which canon westcott does not refer, but which we must point out: [------] { } [------] it is evident that the passage in the apology is quite different from that in the "sermon on the mount" in the first synoptic. if we compare it with matt. xix. , there still remains the express limitation [------], which athenagoras does not admit, his own express doctrine being in accordance with the positive declaration in his text. in the immediate context, indeed, he insists that even to marry another wife after the death of the first is cloaked adultery. we find in luke xvi. , the reading of athenagoras,( ) but with important linguistic variations: [------] it cannot, obviously, be rightly affirmed that athenagoras must have derived this from luke, and the sense of the passage in that gospel, compared with the passage in matthew xix. , on the contrary, rather makes it certain that the reading of athenagoras was derived from a source combining the language of the one and the thought of the other. in mark x. , the reading is nearer that of athenagoras and confirms this conclusion; and the addition there of [------] "against her" after { } [------], further tends to prove that his source was not that gospel. we may at once give the last passage which is supposed to be a quotation from our synoptics, and it is that which is affirmed to be a reference to mark. athenagoras states in almost immediate context with the above: "for in the beginning god formed one man and one woman."( ) this is compared with mark x. : "but from the beginning of the creation god made them male and female": [------] now this passage differs materially in every way from the second synoptic. the reference to "one man" and "one woman" is used in a totally different sense, and enforces the previous assertion that a man may only marry one wife. such an argument directly derived from the old testament is perfectly natural to one who, like athenagoras, derived all his authority from it alone. it is not permissible to claim it as evidence of the use of mark. now we must repeat that athenagoras does not name any source from which he derives his knowledge of the sayings of jesus. these sayings are all from the sermon on the mount, and are introduced by the indefinite phrase [------], and it is remarkable that all differ distinctly from the parallels in our gospels. the whole must be taken together as coming from one source, and while the decided variation excludes the inference that they must have been taken from our gospels, there is reasonable ground for assigning them to a different { } source. dr. donaldson states the case with great fairness: "athenagoras makes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the new testament writers. he does not mention one of them by name, and one cannot be sure that he quotes from any except paul. all the passages taken from the gospels are parts of our lord's discourses, and may have come down to athenagoras by tradition."( ) he might have added that they might also have been derived from the gospel according to the hebrews or many another collection now unhappily lost. one circumstance strongly confirming this conclusion is the fact already mentioned, that athenagoras, in the same chapter in which one of these quotations occurs, introduces an apocryphal saying of the logos, and connects it with previous sayings by the expression "the logos again [------] saying to us." this can only refer to the sayings previously introduced by the indefinite [------]. the sentence, which is in reference to the christian salutation of peace, is as follows: "the logos again saying to us: 'if any one for this reason kiss a second time because it pleased him (he sins);' and adding: 'thus the kiss or rather the salutation must be used with caution, as, if it be defiled even a little by thought, it excludes us from the life eternal.'"( ) this saying, which is directly attributed to the logos, is not found in our gospels. the only natural deduction is that it comes from the same source as the other sayings, and that source was not our synoptic gospels. { } the total absence of any allusion to new testament scriptures in athenagoras, however, is rendered more striking and significant by the marked expression of his belief in the inspiration of the old testament.( ) he appeals to the prophets for testimony as to the truth of the opinions of christians: men, he says, who spoke by the inspiration of god, whose spirit moved their mouths to express god's will as musical instruments are played upon:( ) "but since the voices of the prophets support our arguments, i think that you, being most learned and wise, cannot be ignorant of the writings of moses, or of those of isaiah and jeremiah and of the other prophets, who being raised in ecstasy above the reasoning that was in themselves, uttered the things which were wrought in them, when the divine spirit moved them, the spirit using them as a flute player would blow into the flute."( ) he thus enunciates the theory of the mechanical inspiration of the writers of the old testament, in the clearest manner,( ) and it would indeed have been strange, on the supposition that he extended his views of inspiration to any of the scriptures of the new testament, that he never names a single one of them, nor indicates to the emperors in the same way, as worthy of their attention, any of these scriptures along with the law and the prophets. there can be no doubt that he nowhere gives reason for supposing that he regarded any other writings than the old testament as inspired or "holy scripture."( ) in the treatise on the resurrection there are no arguments derived from scripture. { } . in the th year of the reign of marcus aurelius, between the th march, - , a fierce persecution was, it is said,( ) commenced against the christians in gaul, and more especially at vienne and lyons, during the course of which the aged bishop pothinus, the predecessor of irenæus, suffered martyrdom for the faith. the two communities some time after addressed an epistle to their brethren in asia and phrygia, and also to eleutherus, bishop of rome,( ) relating the events which had occurred, and the noble testimony which had been borne to christ by the numerous martyrs who had been cruelly put to death. the epistle has in great part been preserved by eusebius,( ) and critics generally agree in dating it about a.d. ,( ) although it was most probably not written until the following year.( ) no writing of the new testament is mentioned in this epistle,( ) but it is asserted that there are "unequivocal coincidences of language"( ) with the gospel of luke, and others of its books. the passage which is referred to as { } showing knowledge of our synoptic, is as follows. the letter speaks of one of the sufferers, a certain vettius epagathus, whose life was so austere that, although a young man, "he was thought worthy of the testimony [------] borne by the elder [------] zacharias. he had walked, of a truth, in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless, and was untiring in every kind office towards his neighbour; having much zeal for god and being fervent in spirit."( ) this is compared with the description of zacharias and elizabeth in luke i. : "and they were both righteous before god, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the lord blameless."( ) a little further on in the epistle it is said of the same person: "having in himself the advocate [------], the spirit [------], more abundantly than zacharias," &c.( ) which again is referred to luke i. , "and his father zacharias was filled with the holy spirit and prophesied, saying," &c.( ) a few words must be said regarding the phrase [------], "the testimony of the presbyter zacharias." this, of course, may either be rendered: "the testimony borne to zacharias," that is to say, borne by others to his holy life; or, "the { } testimony borne by zacharias," his own testimony to the faith: his martyrdom. we adopt the latter rendering for various reasons. the epistle is an account of the persecution of the christian community of vienne and lyons, and vettius epagathus is the first of the martyrs who is named in it: [------] was at that time the term used to express the supreme testimony of christians--martyrdom, and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with zacharias. it is, we think, very improbable that, under such circumstances, the word [------] would have been used to express a mere description of the character of zacharias given by some other writer. the interpretation which we prefer is that adopted by tischendorf. we must add that the zacharias here spoken of is generally understood to be the father of john the baptist, and no critic, so far as we can remember, has suggested that the reference in luke xi. , applies to him.( ) since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of zacharias, the father of john the baptist, when using the expressions which are supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in the synoptic? when we examine the matter more closely, we find that, although none of the canonical gospels, except the third, gives any narrative of the birth of john the baptist, that portion of the gospel, in which are the words we are discussing, cannot be considered an original the great majority of critics consider it a reference to chron. xxiv., , though some apply it to a later zacharias. { } production by the third synoptist, but like the rest of his work is merely a composition based upon earlier written narratives.( ) ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first chapters of luke (i. --ii. ) to what he terms "the eighth recognizable book."( ) however this may be, the fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the history of zacharias the father of the baptist was given, and in which not only the words used in the epistle were found but also the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the protevangclium jacobi which contains it. tischendorf, who does not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the scriptures of the new testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the martyrdom of zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the protevangelium jacobi, a work whose origin he dates so far back as the first three decades of the second century,( ) and which he considers was also used by justin, as hilgenfeld had already observed.( ) tischendorf and hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference to zacharias which we have quoted, indicates acquaintance with a different gospel from our third synoptic. hilgenfeld rightly maintains that the protevangelium jacobi in its present shape is merely an { } altered form of an older work,( ) which he conjectures to have been the gospel according to peter, or the gnostic work [------],( ) and both he and tischendorf show that many of the fathers( ) were either acquainted with the protevangelium itself or the works on which it was based. the state of the case, then, is as follows: we find a coincidence in a few words in connection with zacharias between the epistle and our third gospel, but so far from the gospel being in any way indicated as their source, the words in question are connected with a reference to events unknown to our gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere. as part of the passage in the epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part in any case, the agreement of these few words, without the slightest mention of the third synoptic in the epistle, cannot be admitted as proof that they must necessarily have been derived from it and from no other source. { } chapter x. ptolemÆus and heracleon--celsus--the canon of muratori--results. we have now reached the extreme limit of time within which we think it in any degree worth while to seek for evidence as to the date and authorship of the synoptic gospels, and we might now proceed to the fourth gospel; but before doing so it may be well to examine one or two other witnesses whose support has been claimed by apologists, although our attention may be chiefly confined to an inquiry into the date of such testimony, upon which its value, even if real, mainly depends so far as we are concerned. the first of these whom we must notice are the two gnostic leaders, ptolemæus and heracleon. epiphanius has preserved a certain "epistle to flora" ascribed to ptolemseus, in which, it is contended, there are "several quotations from matthew, and one from the first chapter of john."( ) what date must be assigned to this epistle? in reply to those who date it about the end of the second century, tischendorf produces the evidence for an earlier period to which he assigns it. he says: "he (ptolemæus) appears in all the oldest sources tischendorf wann wurden, u. s. w., p. . canon westcott with greater caution says: "he quoted words of our lord recorded by st. matthew, the prologue of st. john's gospel, &c." on the canon, p. . { } as one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of valentinus. as the period at which the latter himself flourished falls about , do we say too much when we represent ptolemæus as working at the latest about ? irenæus (in the nd book) and hippolytus name him together with heracleon; likewise pseudo-tertullian (in the appendix to de præscriptionibus hæreticorum) and philastrius make him appear immediately after valentinus. irenæus wrote the first and second books of his great work most probably (hochst warscheinlich) before , and in both he occupies himself much with ptolemæus."( ) canon westcott, beyond calling ptolemæus and heracleon disciples of valentinus, does not assign any date to either, and does not of course offer any further evidence on the point, although, in regard to heracleon, he admits the ignorance in which we are as to all points of his history,( ) and states generally, in treating of him, that "the exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain."( ) let us, however, examine the evidence upon which tischendorf relies for the date he assigns to ptolemæus. he states in vague terms that ptolemæus appears "in all the oldest sources" (in alien den altesten quellen) as one of the most important disciples of valentinus. we shall presently see what these sources are, but must now follow the argument: "as the date of valentinus falls about , do we say too much when we represent ptolemæus as working at the latest about ?" it is obvious that there is no evidence here, but merely assumption, and the manner in which the period "about " is begged, is a clear admission that there are no certain data. the year { } might with equal propriety upon those grounds have been put ten years earlier or ten years later. the deceptive and arbitrary character of the conclusion, however, will be more apparent when we examine the grounds upon which the relative dates and rest. tischendorf here states that the time at which valentinus flourished falls about a.d. , but the fact is that, as all critics are agreed,( ) and as even tischendorf himself elsewhere states,( ) valentinus came out of egypt to rome in that year, when his public career practically commenced, and he continued to flourish for at least twenty years after.( ) tischendorf s pretended moderation, therefore, consists in dating the period when valentinus flourished from the very year of his first appearance, and in assigning the active career of ptolemseus to when valentinus was still alive and teaching. he might on the same principle be dated , and even in that case there could be no reason for ascribing the epistle to flora to so early a period of his career. tischendorf never even pretends to state any ground upon which ptolemæus must be connected with any precise part of the public life of valentinus, and still less for discriminating the period of the career of ptolemæus at which the epistle may have been composed. it is obvious that a wide limit for date thus exists. after these general statements tischendorf details the only evidence which is available. ( ) "irenæus (in the nd book) and hippolytus name him together with heracleon; likewise ( ) pseudo-tertullian (in the { } appendix to _de præscriptionibus hæreticorum_) and philastrius make him appear immediately after valentinus," &c. we must first examine these two points a little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such statements. with regard to the first ( st) of these points, we shall presently see that the mention of the name of ptolemseus along with that of heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view, inasmuch as tischendorf has as little authority for the date he assigns to the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning him, as in the case of ptolemseus. it is amusing, moreover, that tischendorf employs the very same argument, which sounds well although it means nothing, inversely to establish the date of heracleon. here, he argues: "irenæus and hippolytus name him (ptolemæus) together with heracleon;"(l) there, he reasons: "irenæus names heracleon together with ptolemæus,"( ) &c. as neither the date assigned to the one nor to the other can stand alone, he tries to get them into something like an upright position by propping the one against the other, an expedient which, naturally, meets with little success. we shall in dealing with the case of heracleon show how untenable is the argument from the mere order in which such names are mentioned by these writers; meantime we may simply say that irenæus only once mentions the name of heracleon in his works, and that the occasion on which he does so, and to which reference is here made, is merely an allusion to the Æons "of ptolemseus himself, and of heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views."( ) this phrase might have been used, exactly as it stands, with { } perfect propriety even if ptolemæus and heracleon had been separated by a century. the only point which can be deduced from this mere coupling of names is that, in using the present tense, irenæus is speaking of his own contemporaries. we may make the same remark regarding hippolytus, for, if his mention of ptolemæus and heracleon has any weight at all, it is to prove that they were flourishing in his time: "those who are of italy, of whom is heracleon and ptolemæus, say..."( ) &c. we shall have to go further into this point presently. as to ( ) pseudo-tertullian and philastrius we need only say that even if the fact of the names of the two gnostics being coupled together could prove anything in regard to the date, the repetition by these writers could have no importance for us, their works being altogether based on those of irenæus and hippolytus,( ) and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent information.( ) we have merely indicated the weakness of these arguments in passing, but shall again take them up further on. the next and final consideration advanced by tischendorf is the only one which merits serious attention. "irenæus wrote the first and second book of his great work most probably before , and in both he occupies himself much with ptolemæus." before proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement regarding the time at which irenæus wrote, we may ask what conclusion would be involved if irenæus really did compose the two books in a.d. in which he mentions indeed the direct and avowed dependence of hippolytus himself upon the work of irenæus deprives the philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority. { } our gnostics in the present tense? nothing more than the simple fact that ptolemæus and heracleon were promulgating their doctrines at that time. there is not a single word to show that they did not continue to flourish long after; and as to the "epistle to flora" irenæus apparently knows nothing of it, nor has any attempt been made to assign it to an early part of the gnostic's career. tischendorf, in fact, does not produce a single passage nor the slightest argument to show that irenæus treats our two gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise than as heretics then actively disseminating their heterodox opinions, and, even taken literally, the argument of tischendorf would simply go to prove that about a.d. irenseus wrote part of a work in which he attacks ptolemæus and mentions heracleon. when did irenæus, however, really write his work against heresies? although our sources of credible information regarding him are exceedingly limited, we are not without materials for forming a judgment on the point irenæus was probably born about a.d. - , and is generally supposed to have died at the beginning of the third century (a.d. ).( ) we know that he was deputed by the church of lyons to bear to eleutherus, then bishop of rome, the epistle of that christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution commenced against them in the seventeenth year of the reign of marcus aurelius antoninus ( th march, -- ).( ) it is very improbable that this journey was undertaken, in any case, before the spring of a.d. at the earliest, and, indeed, in accordance with the given data, the { } persecution itself may not have commenced earlier than the beginning of that year, so that his journey need not have been undertaken before the close of or the spring of , to which epoch other circumstances might lead us.( ) there is reason to believe that he remained some time in rome. baronius states that irenæus was not appointed bishop of lyons till a.d. , for he says that the see remained vacant for that period after the death of pothinus in consequence of the persecution. now certain expressions in his work show that irenæus did not write it until he became bishop.( ) it is not known how long irenæus remained in rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of gnostic and other heretics then being actively taught, and the preface to the first book refers to the pains he took. he wrote his work in gaul, however, after his return from this visit to rome. this is apparent from what he himself states in the preface to the first book: "i have thought it necessary," he says, "after having read the memoirs [------] of the disciples of valentinus as they call themselves, and _having had personal intercourse with some of them_ and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee,"( ) &c. a little further on, he claims from the friend to whom he addresses his work indulgence for any defects of style on the score of his being resident amongst the keltæ.( ) irenæus no doubt during his stay in rome came in { } contact with the school of ptolemæus and heracleon, if not with the gnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as he describes himself as being at the doctrines which they insidiously taught, he undertook, on his return to lyons, to explain them that others might be exhorted to avoid such an "abyss of madness and blasphemy against christ."( ) irenæus gives us other materials for assigning a date to his work. in the third book he enumerates the bishops who had filled the episcopal chair of rome, and the last whom he names is eleutherus (a.d. -- ), who, he says, "now in the twelfth place from the apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate."( ) there is, however, another clue which, taken along with this, leads us to a close approximation to the actual date. in the same book, irenæus mentions theodotion's version of the old testament: "but not as some of those say," he writes, "who now [------] presume to alter the interpretation of the scripture: 'behold the young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as theodotion, the ephesian, translated it, and aquila of pontus, both jewish proselytes."( ) now we are informed by epiphanius that theodotion published his translation during the reign of the emperor commodus( ) (a.d. -- ). the chronicon paschale adds that it was during the consulship of marcellus, or as massuet( ) proposes to read marullus, who, jointly with Ælianus, assumed office a.d. . these dates decidedly agree with the passage of irenæus and with the other data, all of which lead { } us to about the same period within the episcopate of eleutherus (+ c. ).( ) we have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which irenæus wrote. it must be remembered that at that period the multiplication and dissemination of books was a very slow process. a work published about or could scarcely have come into the possession of irenæus in gaul till some years later, and we are, therefore, brought towards the end of the episcopate of eleutherus as the earliest date at which the first three books of his work against heresies can well have been written, and the rest must be assigned to a later period under the episcopate of victor (+ -- ).( ) at this point we must pause and turn to the evidence which tischendorf offers regarding the date to be assigned to heracleon.( ) as in the case of ptolemæus, we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. to the all-important question: "how old is heracleon?" tischendorf replies: "irenæus names heracleon, together canon westcott adds no separate testimony. he admits that: "the history of heracleon, the great valentinian commentator, is full of uncertainty. nothing is known of his country or parentage." on the canon, p. , and in a note: "the exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain," p. , note . p { } with ptolemaeus ii. , § , in a way which makes them appear as well-known representatives of the valentinian school. this interpretation of his words is all the more authorized because he never again mentions heracleon. clement, in the th book of his stromata, written shortly after the death of commodus ( ), recalls an explanation by heracleon of luke xii. , when he calls him the most noted, man of the valentinian school [------] is clement's expression). origen, at the beginning of his quotation from heracleon, says that he was held to be a friend of valentinus [------]. hippolytus mentions him, for instance, in the following way: (vi. ); 'valentinus, and heracleon, and ptolemæus, and the whole school of these, disciples of pythagoras and plato....' epiphanius says (hser. ): 'cerdo (the same who, according to irenæus iii. , § , was in rome under bishop hyginus with valentinus) follows these (the ophites, kainites, sethiani), and heracleon.' after all this heracleon certainly cannot be placed later than to . the expression which origen uses regarding his relation to valentinus must, according to linguistic usage, be understood of a personal relation."( ) we have already pointed out that the fact that the names of ptolemæus and heracleon are thus coupled together affords no clue in itself to the date of either, and their being mentioned as leading representatives of the school of valentinus does not in any way involve the inference that they were not contemporaries of irenæus, living and working at the time he wrote. the way in which irenæus mentions them in this the only passage throughout his whole work in which he names { } heracleon, and to which tischendorf pointedly refers, is as follows: "but if it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that which is void is both like, and brother to, and of the same honour with, that father who has before been mentioned by valentinus; but it is really more ancient, having existed long before, and is more exalted than the rest of the Æons of ptolemseus himself, and of heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views."( ) we fail to recognize anything special, here, of the kind inferred by tischendorf, in the way in which mention is made of the two later gnostics. if anything be clear, on the contrary, it is that a distinction is drawn between valentinus and ptolemaeus and heracleon, and that irenæus points out inconsistencies between the doctrines of the founder and those of his later followers. it is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as tischendorf does, that irenæus and subsequent writers represent ptolemaeus and heracleon and other gnostics of his time as of "the school" of valentinus. the question simply is, whether in doing so they at all imply that these men were not contemporaries of irenæus, or necessarily assign their period of independent activity to the lifetime of valentinus, as tischendorf appears to argue? most certainly they do not, and tischendorf does not attempt to offer any evidence that they do so. we may perceive how utterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of affixing an early date by merely considering the quotation which tischendorf himself makes from hippolytus: "valentinus, therefore, and heracleon and ptolemæus, and { } the whole school of these, disciples of pythagoras and plato.... "(l) if the statement that men are of a certain school involves the supposition of coincidence of time, the three gnostic leaders must be considered contemporaries of pythagoras or plato, whose disciples they are said to be. again, if the order in which names are mentioned, as teschendorf contends by inference throughout his whole argument, is to involve strict similar sequence of date, the principle applied to the whole of the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous confusion. teschendorf quotes epiphanius: "cerdo follows these (the ophites, kainites, sethiani), and heracleon." why he does so it is difficult to understand, unless it be to give the appearance of multiplying testimonies, for two sentences further on he is obliged to admit: "epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as in such things not unfrequently happens to him, when he makes cerdo, who, however, is to be placed about , follow heracleon."( ) this kind of mistake is, indeed, common to all the writers quoted, and when it is remembered that such an error is committed where a distinct and deliberate affirmation of the point is concerned, it will easily be conceived how little dependence is to be placed on the mere mention of names in the course of argument. we find irenæus saying that "neither valentinus, nor marcion, nor saturninus, nor basilides" possesses certain knowledge,( ) and elsewhere: "of such an one as valentinus, or ptolemæus, or basilides."( ) to base { } an argument as to date on the order in which names appear in such writers is preposterous. tischendorf draws an inference from the statement that heracleon was said to be a [------] of valentinus, that origen declares him to have been his friend, holding personal intercourse with him. origen, however, evidently knew nothing individually on the point, and speaks from mere hearsay, guardedly using the expression "said to be" [------]. but according to the later and patristic use of the word, [------] meant nothing more than a "disciple," and it cannot here be necessarily interpreted into a "contemporary."( ) under no circumstances could such a phrase, avowedly limited to hearsay, have any weight. the loose manner in which the fathers repeat each other, even in serious matters, is too well known to every one acquainted with their writings to require any remark. their inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical judgment we have seen one of the mistakes of epiphanius, admitted by tischendorf to be only too common with him, which illustrates how little such data are to be relied on. we may point out another of the same kind committed by him in common with hippolytus, pseudo-tertullian and philastrius. mistaking a passage of irenæus,( ) regarding the sacred tetrad (kol-arbas) of the valentinian gnosis, hippolytus supposes irenæus to refer to another heretic leader. he at once treats the tetrad as such a leader named "kolarbasus," and after dealing (vi. ) with the doctrines of secundud, and ptolemæus, and heracleon, he proposes, § , to show "what are the opinions held by marcus and { } kolarbasus."( ) at the end of the same book he declares that irenæus, to whom he states that he is indebted for a knowledge of their inventions, has completely refuted the opinions of these heretics, and he proceeds to treat of basilides, considering that it has been sufficiently demonstrated "whose disciples are marcus and kolarbasus, the successors of the school of valentinus."( ) at an earlier part of the work he had spoken in a more independent way in reference to certain who had promulgated great heresies: "of these," he says, "one is kolarbasus, who endeavours to explain religion by measures and numbers."( ) the same mistake is committed by pseudo-tertullian,( ) and philastrius,( ) each of whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. epiphanius, as might have been expected, fell into the same error, and he proceeds elaborately to refute the heresy of the kolarbasians, "which is heresy xv." he states that kolarbasus follows marcus and ptolemæus,( ) and after discussing the opinions of this mythical heretic he devotes the next chapter, "which is heresy xvi.," to the heracleonites, commencing it with the information that: "a certain heracleon follows after kolarbasus."( ) this absurd mistake( ) shows how little these writers { } knew of the gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the one ignorantly follows the other. the order, moreover, in which they set the heretic leaders varies considerably. it will be sufficient for us merely to remark here that while pseudo-tertullian( ) and philastrius( ) adopt the following order after the valentinians: ptolemæus, secundus, heracleon, marcus, and kolarbasus, epiphanius( ) places them: secundus, ptolemæus, marcosians, kolarbasus, and heracleon; and hippolytus( ) again: secundus, ptolemæus, heracleon, marcus, and kolarbasus. the vagueness of irenæus had left some latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. the somewhat singular fact that irenæus only once mentions heracleon whilst he so constantly refers to ptolemæus, taken in connection with this order, in which heracleon is always placed after ptolemæus,( ) and by epiphanius after marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact that whilst ptolemæus had already gained considerable notoriety when irenæus wrote, heracleon may only have begun to come into notice. since tischendorf lays so much stress upon pseudo-tertullian and philastrius making ptolemaeus appear immediately after valentinus, this explanation is after his own principle. we have already pointed out that there is not a single passage in irenæus, or any other early writer, assigning ptolemæus and heracleon to a period anterior to the time when irenæus undertook to refute their opinions. indeed, tischendorf has not attempted to show that { } they do, and he has merely, on the strength of the general expression that these gnostics were of the school of valentinus, boldly assigned to them an early date. now, as we have stated, he himself admits that valentinus only came from egypt to rome in a.d. , and continued teaching till ,( ) and these dates are most clearly given by irenæus himself.( ) why then should ptolemæus and heracleon, to take an extreme case, not have known valentinus in their youth, and yet have flourished chiefly during the last two decades of the second century? irenæus himself may be cited as a parallel case, which tischendorf at least cannot gainsay. he is never tired of telling us that irenæus was the disciple of polycarp,( ) whose martyrdom he sets about a.d. , and he considers that the intercourse of irenæus with the aged father must properly be put about a.d. ,( ) yet he himself dates the death of irenæus, a.d. ,( ) and nothing is more certain than that the period of his greatest activity and influence falls precisely in the last twenty years of the second century. upon his own data, therefore, that valentinus may have taught for twenty years after his first appearance in rome in a.d. --and there is no ground whatever for asserting that he did not teach for even a much longer period--ptolemaeus and heracleon might well have personally sat at the feet of valentinus in their youth, as irenseus is said to have done about the very same period at those of polycarp, and yet, like him, have flourished chiefly towards the end of the century. { } although there is not the slightest ground for asserting that ptolemæus and heraclcon were not contemporaries with irenæus, flourishing like him towards the end of the second century, there are, on the other hand, many circumstances which altogether establish, the conclusion that they were. "we have already shown, in treating of valentinus,( ) that irenæus principally directs his work against the followers of valentinus living at the time he wrote, and notably of ptolemæus and his school.( ) in the preface to the first book, having stated that he writes after personal intercourse with some of the disciples of valentinus,( ) he more definitely declares his purpose: "we will, then, to the best of our ability, clearly and concisely set forth the opinions of those who are now [------] teaching heresy, _i speak particularly of the disciples of ptolemæus_ [------] whose system is an offshoot from the school of valentinus."( ) nothing could be more explicit. irenæus in this passage distinctly represents ptolemæus as teaching at the time he is writing, and this statement alone is decisive, more especially as there is not a single known fact which is either directly or indirectly opposed to it. tischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of hippolytus in coupling together the names of ptolemæus and heracleon with that of valentinus; similar testimony of the same writer, fully confirming the above statement of irenæus, will, therefore, have the greater force. hippolytus says that the valentinians differed materially among themselves regarding certain points which led to divisions, one party being called the { } oriental and the other the italian. "they of the italian party, of whom is heracleon and ptolemæus, say, &c.... they, however, who are of the oriental party, of whom is axionicus and bardesanes, maintain," &c.( ) now, ptolemæus and heracleon are here quite clearly represented as being contemporary with axionicus and bardesanes, and without discussing whether hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe them as all living at the time he wrote,( ) there can be no doubt that some of them were, and that this evidence confirms again the statement of irenæus. hippolytus, in a subsequent part of his work, states that a certain prepon, a marcionite, has introduced something new, and "now in our own time [------] has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to bardesanes."( ) the researches of hilgenfeld have proved that bardesanes lived at least over the reign of heliogabalus ( -- ), and the statement of hippolytus is thus confirmed.( ) axionicus again was still flourishing when tertullian wrote his work against the valentinians { } ( -- ). tertullian says: "axionicus of antioch alone to the present day (ad hodiernum) respects the memory of valentinus, by keeping fully the rules of his system."( ) although on the whole they may be considered to have flourished somewhat earlier, ptolemæus and heracleon are thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of axionicus and bardesanes.( ) moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of ptolemæus and heracleon represent a much later form of gnosticism than that of valentinus. it is generally admitted that ptolemæus reduced the system of valentinus to consistency,( ) and the inconsistencies which existed between the views of the master and these later followers, and which indicate a much more advanced stage of development, are constantly pointed out by irenæus and the fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. origen also represents heracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned by the church,( ) and both he and ptolemæus must indubitably be classed amongst the latest gnostics.( ) it is clear, therefore, that ptolemæus and heracleon were contemporaries of irenæus( ) at the time he composed his work against heresies ( -- ), both, and especially { } the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the second century.( ) we mentioned, in first speaking of these gnostics, that epiphanius has preserved an epistle, attributed to ptolemæus, which is addressed to flora, one of his disciples.( ) this epistle is neither mentioned by irenæus nor by any other writer before epiphanius. there is nothing in the epistle itself to show that it was really written by ptolemæus himself. assuming it to be by him, however, the epistle was in all probability written towards the end of the second century, and it does not, therefore, come within the scope of our inquiry. we may, however, briefly notice the supposed references to our gospels which it contains. the writer of the epistle, without any indication whatever of a written source from which he derived them, quotes sayings of jesus for which parallels are found in our first gospel. these sayings are introduced by such expressions as "he said," "our saviour declared," but never as quotations from any scripture. now, in affirming that they are taken from the gospel according to matthew, apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste, for we must clearly and decidedly state that there is not a single one of the passages which does not present decided variations from the parallel passages in our first synoptic. we subjoin for comparison in parallel columns the passages from the epistle and gospel:-- [------] [------] { } it must not be forgotten that iræneus makes very explicit statements as to the recognition of other sources of evangelical truth than our gospels by the valentinians, regarding which we have fully written when discussing the founder of that sect.( ) we know that they professed to have direct traditions from the apostles through theodas, a disciple of the apostle paul;( ) and in the { } epistle to flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine received by direct tradition from the apostles.( ) irenæus says that the valentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten sources,( ) and he accuses them of rejecting the gospels of the church,( ) but, on the other hand, he states that they had many gospels different from what he calls the gospels of the apostles.( ) with regard to heracleon, it is said that he wrote commentaries on the third and fourth gospels. the authority for this statement is very insufficient. the assertion with reference to the third gospel is based solely upon a passage in the stromata of the alexandrian clement. clement quotes a passage found in luke xii. , , , and says: "expounding this passage, heracleon, the most distinguished of the school of valentinus, says as follows," &c.( ) this is immediately interpreted into a quotation from a commentary on luke.( ) we merely point out that from clement's remark it by no means follows that heracleon wrote a commentary at all, and further there is no evidence that the passage commented upon was actually from our third gospel.( ) the stromata of clement were not written until after a.d. , and in them we find the first and only reference to this supposed commentary. "we need not here refer to the commentary on the fourth gospel, which is merely { } inferred from references in origen (c. a.d. ), but of which we have neither earlier nor fuller information.( ) we must, however, before leaving this subject, mention that origen informs us that heracleon quotes from the preaching of peter [------], pesedicatio petri), a work which, as we have already several times mentioned, was cited by clement of alexandria as authentic and inspired holy scripture.( ) the epoch at which ptolemæus and heracleon flourished would in any case render testimony regarding our gospels of little value. the actual evidence which they furnish, however, is not of a character to prove even the existence of our synoptics, and much less does it in any way bear upon their character or authenticity. . a similar question of date arises regarding celsus, who wrote a work, entitled [------], true doctrine, which is no longer extant, of which origen composed an elaborate refutation. the christian writer takes the arguments of celsus in detail, presenting to us, therefore, its general features, and giving many extracts; and as celsus professes to base much of his accusation upon the writings in use amongst christians, although he does not name a single one of them, it becomes desirable to ascertain what those works were, and the date at which { } celsus wrote. as usual, we shall state the case by giving the reasons assigned for an early date. arguing against volkmar and others, who maintain, from a passage at the close of his work, that oligen, writing about the second quarter of the third century, represents celsus as his contemporary,( ) tischendorf, referring to the passage, which we shall give in its place, proceeds to assign an earlier date upon the following grounds: "but indeed, even in the first book, at the commencement of the whole work, origen says: 'therefore, i cannot compliment a christian whose faith is in danger of being shaken by celsus, who yet does not even [------] still [------] live the common life among men, but already and long since [------] is dead.'... in the same first book origen says: 'we have heard that there were two men of the name of celsus, epicureans, the first under nero; this one' (that is to say, ours) 'under hadrian and later.' it is not impossible that origen mistakes when he identified his celsus with the epicurean living 'under hadrian and later;' but it is impossible to convert the same celsus of whom origen says this into a contemporary of origen. or would origen himself in the first book really have set his celsus 'under hadrian ( -- ) and later,' yet in the eighth have said: 'we will wait (about ), to see whether he will still accomplish this design of making another work follow?' now, until some better discovery regarding celsus is attained, it will be well to hold to the old opinion that celsus wrote his book about the middle of the second century, probably between -- ," &c.( ) { } it is scarcely necessary to point out that the only argument advanced by tischendorf bears solely against the assertion that celsus was a contemporary of origen, "about ," and leaves the actual date entirely unsettled. he not only admits that the statement of origen regarding the identity of his opponent with the epicurean of the reign of hadrian "and later," may be erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and having abandoned the conjecture of origen as groundless and untenable, he substitutes a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported by reasons, that celsus probably wrote between - . indeed, he does not attempt to justify this date, but arbitrarily decides to hold by it until a better can be demonstrated. he is forced to admit the ignorance of origen on the point, and he does not conceal his own. now it is clear that the statement of origen in the preface to his work, quoted above, that celsus, against whom he writes, is long since dead,( ) is made in the belief that this celsus was the epicurean who lived under hadrian,( ) { } which tischendorf, although he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly recognizes to be a mistake. origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his adversary, and it obviously follows that, his impression that he is celsus the epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he was long since dead, which is based upon that impression, loses all its value. origen certainly at one time conjectured his celsus to be the epicurean of the reign of hadrian, for he not only says so directly in the passage quoted, but on the strength of his belief in the fact, he accuses him of inconsistency: "but celsus," he says, "must be convicted of contradicting himself; for he is discovered from other of his works to have been an epicurean, but here, because he considered that he could attack the word more effectively by not avowing the views of epicurus, he pretends, &c.... remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind," &c.( ) and from time to time he continues to refer to him as an epicurean,( ) although it is evident that in the writing before him he constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school. beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, origen absolutely knows nothing whatever as to the personality of celsus, or the time at which he wrote,( ) and he sometimes very naively expresses his uncertainty regarding him. referring in one place to certain passages which seem to imply a belief in magic on the part of celsus, origen adds: "i do not know whether he is the same who has written several books { } against magic."( ) elsewhere he says: "... the epicurean celsus (if he be the same who composed two other books against christians)," &c.( ) not only is it apparent that origen knows nothing of the celsus with whom he is dealing, however, but it is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that during the time he was composing his work his impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became considerably modified. in the earlier portion of the first book( ) he has heard that his celsus is the epicurean of the reign of hadrian, but a little further on,( ) he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is the same celsus who wrote against magic, which celsus the epicurean actually did. in the fourth book( ) he expresses uncertainty as to whether the epicurean celsus had composed the work against christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he seems to treat him as a contemporary. he writes to his friend ambrosius, at whose request the refutation of celsus was undertaken: "know, however, that celsus has promised to write another treatise after this one.... if, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his discourse. if, { } however, he has commenced and finished this work also, seek it and "send it in order that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it," &c.( ) from this passage, and supported by other considerations, volkmar and others assert that celsus was really a contemporary of origen.( ) to this, as we have seen, tischendorf merely replies by pointing out that origen in the preface says that celsus was already dead, and that he was identical with the epicurean celsus who flourished under hadrian and later. the former of these statements, however, was made under the impression that the latter was correct, and as it is generally agreed that origen was mistaken in supposing that celsus the epicurean was the author of the [------],( ) and tischendorf himself admits the fact, the two earlier statements, that celsus flourished under hadrian and consequently that he had long been dead, fall together, whilst the subsequent doubts regarding his identity not only stand, but { } rise into assurance at the close of the work in the final request to ambrosius.( ) there can be no doubt that the first statements and the closing paragraphs are contradictory, and whilst almost all critics pronounce against the accuracy of the former, the inferences from the latter retain full force, confirmed as they are by the intermediate doubts expressed by origen himself. even those who, like tischendorf, in an arbitrary manner assign an early date to celsus, although they do not support their conjectures by any satisfactory reasons of their own, all tacitly set aside these of origen.( ) it is generally admitted by these, with lardner( ) and michaelis,( ) that the epicurean celsus to "whom origen was at one time disposed to refer the work against christianity, was the writer of that name to whom lucian, his friend and contemporary, addressed his alexander or pseudomantis, and who really wrote against magic,( ) as origen mentions.( ) but although on this account lardner assigns to him the date of a.d. , the fact is that lucian did not write his pseudomantis, as lardner is obliged to admit,( ) until the reign of the { } emperor commodus ( -- ), and even upon the supposition that this celsus wrote against christianity, of which there is not the slightest evidence, there would be no ground whatever for dating the work before a.d. . on the contrary, as lucian does not in any way refer to such a writing by his friend, there would be strong reason for assigning the work, if it be supposed to be written by him, to a date subsequent to the pseudo-mantis. it need not be remarked that the references of celsus to the marcionites,( ) and to the followers of marcellina,( ) only so far bear upon the matter as to exclude an early date.( ) it requires very slight examination of the numerous extracts from, and references to, the work which origen seeks to refute, however, to convince any impartial mind that the doubts of origen were well founded as to whether celsus the epicurean were really the author of the [------]. as many critics of all shades of opinion have long since determined, so far from being an epicurean, the celsus attacked by origen, as the philosophical opinions which he everywhere expresses clearly show, was a neo-platonist.( ) indeed, although origen seems to retain some impression that his antagonist must be an epicurean, as he had heard, and frequently refers to him as such, he does not point out epicurean { } sentiments in his writings, but on the contrary, not only calls upon him no longer to conceal the school to which he belongs and avow himself an epicurean,( ) which celsus evidently does not, but accuses him of expressing views inconsistent with that philosophy,( ) or of so concealing his epicurean opinions that it might be said that he is an epicurean only in name.( ) on the other hand, origen is clearly surprised to find that he quotes so largely from the writings, and shows such marked leaning towards the teaching, of plato, in which celsus indeed finds the original and purer form of many christian doctrines,( ) and origen is constantly forced to discuss plato in meeting the arguments of celsus. the author of the work which origen refuted, therefore, instead of being an epicurean, as origen supposed merely from there having been an epicurean of the same name, was undoubtedly a neo-platonist, as mosheim long ago demonstrated, of the school of ammonius, who founded the sect at the close of the second century.( ) the promise of celsus to write a second book with practical rules for living in accordance with the philosophy he promulgates, to which origen refers at the close of his work, confirms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system of philosophy.( ) an epicurean would not have thought of such a work--it would have been both appropriate and necessary in connection with neo-platonism. we are, therefore, constrained to assign the work of { } celsus to at least the early part of the third century, and to the reign of septimius severus. celsus repeatedly accuses christians, in it, of teaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks them out and punishes them with death,( ) and this indicates a period of persecution. lardner, assuming the writer to be the epicurean friend of lucian, from this clue supposes that the persecution referred to must have been that under marcus aurelius (f ), and practically rejecting the data of origen himself, without advancing sufficient reasons of his own, dates celsus a.d. .( ) as a neo-platonist, however, we are more accurately led to the period of persecution which, from embers never wholly extinct since the time of marcus aurelius, burst into fierce flame more especially in the tenth year of the reign of severus( ) (a.d. ), and continued for many years to afflict christians. it is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly arbitrary, and even if our argument for the later epoch were very much less conclusive than it is, the total absence of evidence for an earlier date would completely nullify any testimony derived from celsus. it is sufficient for us to add that, whilst he refers to incidents of gospel history and quotes some sayings which have pandlels, with more or less of variation, in our gospels, celsus nowhere mentions the name of any christian book, unless we except the book of enoch;( ) and he accuses christians, not without reason, of interpolating the books of the sibyl, whose authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.( ) { } . the last document which we need examine in connection with the synoptic gospels is the list of new testament and other writings held in consideration by the church, which is generally called, after its discoverer and first editor, the canon of muratori. this interesting fragment, which was published in by muratori in his collection of italian antiquities,( ) at one time belonged to the monastery of bobbio, founded by the irish monk columban, and was found by muratori in the ambrosian library at milan in a ms. containing extracts of little interest from writings of eucherius, ambrose, chrysostom, and others. muratori estimated the age of the ms. at about a thousand years, but so far as we are aware no thoroughly competent judge has since expressed any opinion upon the point. the fragment, which is defective both at the commencement and at the end, is written in an apologetic tone, and professes to give a list of the writings which are recognised by the christian church. it is a document which has no official character,( ) but which merely conveys the private views and information of the anonymous writer, regarding whom nothing whatever is known. from any point of view, the composition is of a nature permitting the widest differences of opinion. it is by some affirmed to be a complete treatise on the books received by the church, from which fragments have been lost;( ) whilst { } others consider it a mere fragment in itself.( ) it is written in latin which by some is represented as most corrupt,( ) whilst others uphold it as most correct.( ) the text is further rendered almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy of orthography and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the translator, and to both.( ) indeed such is the elastic condition of the text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginable description, that by means of ingenious conjectures critics are able to find in it almost any sense they desire.( ) considerable difference of opinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greater number of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation from the greek,( ) whilst others assert it to { } have been originally written in latin.( ) its composition is variously attributed to the church of africa( ) and to a member of the church in rome.( ) the fragment commences with the concluding portion of a sentence.... "quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit"--"at which nevertheless he was present, and thus he placed it." the ms. then proceeds: "third book of the gospel according to luke. luke, that physician, after the ascension of christ when paul took him with him..., wrote it in his name as he deemed best (ex opinione)--nevertheless he had not himself seen the lord in the flesh,--and he too, as far as he could obtain information, also begins to speak from the nativity of john." the text, at the sense of which this is a closely approximate guess, though several other { } interpretations might be maintained, is as follows: tertio evangelii librum secundo lucan lucas iste medicus post ascensum christi cum eo paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex opinione concribset dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne et idem prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate johannis incipet dicere. the ms. goes on to speak in more intelligible language "of the fourth of the gospels of john, one of the disciples." (quarti evangeliorum johannis ex decipolis) regarding the composition of which the writer relates a legend, which we shall quote when we come to deal with that gospel the fragment then proceeds to mention the acts of the apostles,--which is ascribed to luke--thirteen epistles of paul in peculiar order, and it then refers to an epistle to the laodiceans and another to the alexandrians, forged, in the name of paul, after the heresy of marcion, "and many others which cannot be received by the catholic church, as gall must not be mixed with vinegar." the epistle to the ephesians bore the name of epistle to the laodiceans in the list of marcion, and this may be a reference to it.( ) the epistle to the alexandrians is generally identified with the epistle to the hebrews,( ) although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and consider both epistles referred to pseudographs { } attributed to the apostle paul. the epistle of jude, and two (the second and third) epistles of john are, with some tone of doubt, mentioned amongst the received books, and so is the book of wisdom. the apocalypses of john and of peter only are received, but some object to the latter being read in church. the epistle of james, both epistles of peter, the epistle to the hebrews (which is, however, probably indicated as the epistle to the alexandrians), and the first epistle of john are omitted altogether, with the exception of a quotation which is supposed to be from the last-named epistle, to which we shall hereafter refer. special reference is made to the pastor of hermas, which we shall presently discuss, regarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should be read privately but not publicly in church, as it can neither be classed amongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles. the fragment concludes with the rejection of the writings of several heretics.( ) it is inferred that, in the missing commencement of the fragment, the first two synoptics must have been mentioned. this, however, though of course most probable, cannot actually be ascertained, and so far as these gospels are concerned, therefore, the "canon of muratori" only furnishes conjectural evidence. the statement regarding the third synoptic merely proves the existence of that gospel at the time the fragment { } was composed, and we shall presently endeavour to form some idea of that date, but beyond this fact the information given anything but tends to establish the unusual credibility claimed for the gospels. it is declared by the fragment, as we have seen, that the third synoptic was written by luke, who had not himself seen the lord, but narrated the history as best he was able. it is worthy of remark, moreover, that even the apostle paul, who took luke with him after the ascension, had not been a follower of jesus either, nor had seen him in the flesh, and certainly he did not, by the showing of his own epistles, associate much with the other apostles, so that luke could not have had much opportunity while with him of acquiring from them any intimate knowledge of the events of gospel history. it is undeniable that the third synoptic is not the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences which it records did not take place in the presence, or within the personal knowledge, of the writer, but were derived from tradition, or from written sources. such testimony, therefore, could not in any case be of much service to our third synoptic; but when we consider the uncertainty of the date at which the fragment was composed, and the certainty that it could not have been written at an early period, it will become apparent that the value of its evidence is reduced to a minimum. we have already incidentally mentioned that the writer of this fragment is totally unknown, nor does there exist any clue by which he can be identified. all the critics who have assigned an early date to the composition of the fragment have based their conclusion, almost solely, upon a statement made by the author regarding the pastor of hennas. he says: "hermas in { } truth composed the pastor very recently in our times in the city of rome, the bishop pius his brother, sitting in the chair of the church of the city of rome. and, therefore, it should indeed be read, but it cannot be published in the church to the people, neither being among the prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the latter days." "pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe roma herma conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis romæ ecclesiæ pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in fine temporum potest."( ) muratori, the discoverer of the ms., conjectured for various reasons, which need not be here detailed, that the fragment was written by caius the roman presbyter, who flourished at the end of the second (c. a.d. ) and beginning of the third century, and in this he was followed by a few others.( ) the great mass of critics, however, have rejected this conjecture, as they have likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of the composition by simon de magistris to papias of hierapolis,( ) and by bunsen to hegesippus.( ) such attempts to identify the unknown author are obviously mere speculation, and it is impossible to suppose that, had papias, hegesippus, or any other well-known writer of the same period composed such a list, eusebius could have failed to refer to { } it, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work. thiersch even expressed a suspicion that the fragment was a literary mystification on the part of muratori himself.( ) the mass of critics, with very little independent consideration, have taken literally the statement of the author regarding the composition of the pastor "very recently in our times" (nuperrime temporibus nostris), during the episcopate of pius (a.d. -- ), and have concluded the fragment to have been written towards the end of the second century, though we need scarcely say that a few writers would date it even earlier.( ) on the other hand, and we consider with reason, many critics, { } including men who will not be accused of opposition to an early canon, assign the composition to a later period, between the end of the second or beginning of the third century and the fourth century.( ) when we examine the ground upon which alone an early date can be supported, it becomes apparent how slight the foundation is. the only argument of any weight is the statement with regard to the composition of the pastor, but with the exception of the few apologists who do not hesitate to assign a date totally inconsistent with the state of the canon described in the fragment, the great majority of critics feel that they are forced to place the composition at least towards the end of the second century, at a period when the statement in the composition may agree with the actual opinions in the church, and yet in a sufficient degree accord with the expression "very recently in our times," as applied to the period of pius of rome, -- . it must be evident that, taken literally, a very arbitrary interpretation is given to this indication, and in supposing that the writer may have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the time of pius, so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed. with this sole exception, there is not a single word or statement in the fragment which would oppose our assigning the { } composition to a late period of the third century. volkmar has very justly pointed out, however, that in saying "very recently in our times" the writer merely intended to distinguish the pastor of hermas from the writings of the prophets and apostles: it cannot be classed amongst the prophets whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles, inasmuch as it was only written in our post-apostolic time. this is an accurate interpretation of the expression,( ) which might with perfect propriety be used a century after the time of pius. we have seen that there has not appeared a single trace of any canon in the writings of any of the fathers whom we have examined, and that the old testament has been the only holy scripture they have acknowledged; and it is therefore unsafe, upon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even a century later, to date this anonymous fragment, regarding which we know nothing, earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of the third century, and it is still more probable that it was not written until an advanced period of the third century. the expression used with regard to pius: "sitting in the chair of the church," is quite unprecedented in the second century or until a very much later date.( ) it is argued that the fragment is imperfect, and that sentences have fallen out; and in regard to this, and to the assertion that it is a translation from the greek, it has been well remarked by a writer whose judgment on the point will scarcely be called prejudiced: "if it is thus mutilated, why might it not also be interpolated? if moreover the translator { } was so ignorant of latin, can we trust his translation? and what guarantee have we that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original? the force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with the paragraph which gives the date. the pastor of hermas was not well known to the western church, and it was not highly esteemed. it was regarded as inspired by the eastern, and read in the eastern churches. we have seen, moreover, that it was extremely unlikely that hermas was a real personage. it would be, therefore, far more probable that we have here an interpolation, or addition by a member of the roman or african church, probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose of serving as proof that the pastor of hennas was not inspired. the paragraph itself bears unquestionable mark of tampering,"( ) &c. it would take us too far were we to discuss the various statements of the fragment as indications of date, and the matter is not of sufficient importance. it contains nothing involving an earlier date than the third century. the facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows, so far as our object is concerned. the third synoptic is mentioned by a totally unknown writer, at an unknown, but certainly not early, date, in all probability during the third century, in a fragment which we possess in a very corrupt version very far from free from suspicion of interpolation in the precise part from which the early date is inferred. the gospel is attributed to luke, who was not one of the followers of jesus, and of whom it is expressly said that "he himself had not seen the lord in the flesh," but wrote "as he deemed best (ex opinione)," and followed his history as he was able (et { } idem prout assequi potuit).( ) if the fragment of muratori, therefore, even came within our limits as to date, its evidence would be of no value, for, instead of establishing the trustworthiness and absolute accuracy of the narrative of the third synoptic, it distinctly tends to discredit it, inasmuch as it declares it to be the composition of one who undeniably was not an eye-witness of the miracles reported, but collected his materials, long after, as best he could.( ) . we may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence for the synoptic gospels. after having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those gospels, with the exception of the third, during the first century and a half after the death of jesus. only once during the whole of that period do we find even a tradition that any of our evangelists composed a gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second. papias, about the middle of the passage is freely rendered thus by canon westcott: "the gospel of st. luke, it is then said, stands third in order [in the canon], having been written by 'luke the physician,' the companion of st. paul, who, not being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from tho birth of john." on the canon, p. . we do not propose, to consider the ophites and peratici, obscure gnostic sects towards the end of the second century. there is no direct evidence regarding them, and the testimony of writers in the third century, like hippolytus, is of no value for the gospels. { } the second century, on the occasion to which we refer, records that matthew composed the discourses of the lord in the hebrew tongue, a statement which totally excludes the claim of our greek gospel to apostolic origin. mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of peter the sayings and doings of jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not himself a follower of the master, and merely recorded what fell from the apostle. this description, likewise, shows that our actual second gospel could not, in its present form, have been the work of mark. there is no other reference during the period to any writing of matthew or mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to luke. the identification of marcion's gospel with our third synoptic proves the existence of that work before a.d. , but no evidence is thus obtained either as to the author or the character of his work, but on the contrary the testimony of the great heresiarch is so far unfavourable to that gospel, as it involves a charge against it, of being interpolated and debased by jewish elements. the freedom with which marcion expurgated and altered it clearly shows that he did not regard it either as a sacred or canonical work. any argument for the mere existence of our synoptics based upou their supposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects has the inevitable disadvantage, that the very testimony which would show their existence would oppose their authenticity. there is no evidence of their use by heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. it is unnecessary to add that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony of these gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of { } miracles and of a direct divine revelation.( ) it is not pretended that more than one of the synoptic gospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists, or is now even conceivable. the discrepancy between the amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under the circumstances could have been thought possible. a comparison of the contents of the three synoptics would have confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must hasten on. { } part iii. the fourth gospel chapter i. the external evidence "we shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already cited in connection with the synoptics, and ascertain what evidence they furnish for the date and authenticity of the fourth gospel apologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the fourth gospel in the so-called epistle of clement of rome to the corinthians.( ) a few critics( ) pretend to find a trace of it in the epistle of barnabas, in the reference to the brazen serpent as a type of jesus. tischendorf states the case as follows:-- { } "and when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how moses in the brazen serpent made a type of jesus 'who should suffer (die) and yet himself make alive,' the natural inference is that barnabas connected therewith john iii. , f. even if the use of this passage in particular cannot be proved. although this connection cannot be affirmed, since the author of the epistle, in this passage as in many others, may be independent, yet it is justifiable to ascribe the greatest probability to its dependence on the passage in john, as the tendency of the epistle in no way required a particular leaning to the expression of john. the disproportionately more abundant use of express quotations from the old testament in barnabas is, on the contrary, connected most intimately with the tendency of his whole composition."( ) it will be observed that the suggestion of reference to the fourth gospel is here advanced in a very hesitating way, and does not indeed go beyond an assertion of probability. we might, therefore, well leave the matter without further notice, as the reference in no case could be of any weight as evidence. on examination of the context, however, we find that there is every reason to conclude that the reference to the brazen serpent is made direct to the old testament. the author who delights in typology is bent upon showing that the cross is prefigured in the old testament. he gives a number of instances, involving the necessity for a display of ridiculous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare us to find the comparatively simple type of the brazen serpent naturally selected. after pointing out that moses, with his arms stretched out in prayer that the israelites might prevail in the fight, was a type of the { } cross, he goes on to say: "again moses makes a type of jesus, that he must suffer and himself make alive [------], whom they will appear to have destroyed, in a figure, while israel was falling;"(l) and connecting the circumstance that the people were bit by serpents and died with the transgression of eve by means of the serpent, he goes on to narrate minutely the story of moses and the brazen serpent, and then winds up with the words: "thou hast in this the glory of jesus; that in him are all things and for him."( ) no one can read the whole passage carefully without seeing that the reference is direct to the old testament.( ) there is no ground for supposing that the author was acquainted with the fourth gospel. to the pastor of hermas tischendorf devotes only two lines, in which he states that "it has neither quotations from the old nor from the new testament."( ) canon { } westcott makes the same statement,( ) but, unlike the german apologist, he proceeds subsequently to affirm that hermas makes "clear allusions to st. john;" which few or no apologists support. this assertion he elaborates and illustrates as follows:-- "the view which hermas gives of christ's nature and work is no less harmonious with apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking analogies to the gospel of st. john. not only did the son 'appoint angels to preserve each of those whom the father gave to him;' but 'he himself toiled very much and suffered very much to cleanse our sins.... and so when he himself had cleansed the sins of the people, he showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which he received from his. father.'( ) he is 'a rock higher than the mountains, able to hold the whole world, ancient, and yet having a new gate.'( ) 'his name is great and infinite, and the whole world is supported by him.'( ) 'he is older than creation, so that he took counsel with the father about the { } creation which he made.'( ) 'he is the sole way of access to the lord; and no one shall enter in unto him otherwise than by his son.'"( ) this is all canon westcott says on the subject.( ) he does not attempt to point out any precise portions of the fourth gospel with which to compare these "striking analogies," nor does he produce any instances of similarity of language, or of the use of the same terminology as the gospel in this apocalyptic allegory. it is evident that such evidence could in no case be of any value for the fourth gospel. when we examine more closely, however, it becomes certain that these passages possess no real analogy with the fourth gospel, and were not derived from it. there is no part of them that has not close parallels in writings antecedent to our gospel, and there is no use of terminology peculiar to it. the author does not even once use the term logos. canon westcott makes no mention of the fact that the doctrine of the logos and of the pre-existence of jesus was enunciated long before the composition of the fourth gospel, with almost equal clearness and fulness, and that its development can be traced through the septuagint translation, the "proverbs of solomon," some of the apocryphal works of the old testament, the writings of philo, and in the apocalypse, epistle to the hebrews, as well as the pauline epistles. to any one who examines the passages cited from the works of hennas, and still more to any one acquainted with the history of the logos doctrine, it will, we fear, { } seem wasted time to enter upon any minute refutation of such imaginary "analogies." we shall, however, as briefly as possible refer to each passage quoted. the first is taken from an elaborate similitude with regard to true fasting, in which the world is likened to a vineyard and, in explaining his parable, the shepherd says: "god planted the vineyard, that is, he created the people and gave them to his son: and the son appointed his angels over them to keep them: and he himself cleansed their sins, having suffered many things and endured many labours.... he himself, therefore, having cleansed the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which he received from his father."( ) it is difficult indeed to find anything in this passage which is in the slightest degree peculiar to the fourth gospel, or apart from the whole course of what is taught in the epistles, and more especially the epistle to the hebrews. we may point out a few passages for comparison: heb. i. - ; ii. - ; v. - ; vii. , - ; viii. - ; x. - ; romans viii. - ; matt. xxi. ; mark xii. ; isaiah v. , liii. the second passage is taken from an elaborate parable on the building of the church: [------] "and in the middle of the plain he showed me a great white rock which had risen out of the plain, and the rock was higher than the mountains, rectangular so as to be able to hold the whole world, but that rock was old having a gate [------] hewn out of it, and the hewing out of the gate [------] seemed to me to be recent."( ) upon this rock the tower of the church is built. further on an explanation is given of the similitude, in which occurs another of the { } passages referred to.[------] "this rock [------] and this gate [------] are the son of god. 'how, lord,' i said, 'is the rock old and the gate new?' 'listen,' he said, 'and understand, thou ignorant man. [------] the son of god is older than all of his creation [------], so that he was a councillor with the father in his work of creation; and for this is he old.' [------] 'and why is the gate new, lord?' i said; 'because,' he replied, 'he was manifested at the last days [------] of the dispensation; for this cause the gate was made new, in order that they who shall be saved might enter by it into the kingdom of god.'"( ) and a few lines lower down the shepherd further explains, referring to entrance through the gate, and introducing another of the passages cited: [------] "'in this way,' he said, 'no one shall enter into the kingdom of god unless he receive his holy name. if, therefore, you cannot enter into the city unless through its gate, so also,' he said, 'a man cannot enter in any other way into the kingdom of god than by the name of his son beloved by him'... 'and the gate [------] is the son of god. this is the one entrance to the lord.' in no other way, therefore, shall any one enter in to him, except through his son."( ) now with regard to the similitude of a rock we need scarcely say that the old testament teems with it; and we need not point to the parable of the house built upon a rock in the first gospel.( ) a more apt illustration is the famous saying with regard to peter: "and upon this rock [------] i will build my church," upon which { } indeed the whole similitude of hermas turns; and in cor. x. , we read: "for they drank of the spiritual rock accompanying them; but the rock was christ" [------]. there is no such similitude in the fourth gospel at all. we then have the "gate," on which we presume canon westcott chiefly relies. the parable in john x. -- is quite different from that of hermas,( ) and there is a persistent use of different terminology. the door into the sheepfold is always [------], the gate in the rock always [------]. "i am the door,"( ) [------] is twice repeated in the fourth gospel. "the gate is the son of god" [------] is the declaration of hermas. on the other hand, there are numerous passages, elsewhere, analogous to that in the pastor of hermas. every one will remember the injunction in the sermon on the mount: matth. vii. , . "enter in through the strait gate [------], for wide is the gate [------], &c., . because narrow is the gate [------] and straitened is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."( ) the limitation to the one way of entrance into the kingdom of god: "by the name of his son," is also found everywhere throughout the epistles, and likewise in the acts of the apostles; as for instance: acts iv. , "and there is no salvation in any other: for neither is there any other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." the reasons given why the rock is old and the gate new [------] have anything but special analogy with compare the account of the new jerusalem, rev. xxi. ff.; cf. xxii. , . in simil. ix. , it is insisted that, to enter into the kingdom, not only "his name" must be borne, but that we must put on certain clothing. { } the fourth gospel. we are, on the contrary, taken directly to the epistle to the hebrews in which the pre-existence of jesus is prominently asserted, and between which and the pastor, as in a former passage, we find singular linguistic analogies. for instance, take the whole opening portion of heb. i. : "god having at many times and in many manners spoken in times past to the fathers by the prophets, . at the end of these days [------] spake to us in the son whom he appointed heir [------]( ) of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, . who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made by himself a cleansing of our sins sat down at the right hand of majesty on high, . having become so much better than the angels,"( ) &c., &c; and if we take the different clauses we may also find them elsewhere constantly repeated, as for instance: [------] the son older than all his creation: compare tim. i. , colossiansi. ("who is... the first born of all creation"--[------], , , , rev. iii. , x. . the works of philo are full of this representation of the logos. for example: "for the word of god is over all the universe, and the oldest and most universal of all things created" [------] { } [------].( ) again, as to the second clause, that he assisted the father in the work of creation, compare heb. ii. , i. , xi. , rom. xi. , cor. viii. , coloss. i. , .( ) the only remaining passage is the following: "the name of the son of god is great and infinite and supports the whole world." for the first phrase, compare tim. iv. , heb. i. ; and for the second part of the sentence, heb. i. , coloss. i. , and many other passages quoted above.( ) the whole assertion( ) is devoid of foundation, and might well have been left unnoticed. the attention called to it, however, may not be wasted in observing the kind of evidence with which apologists are compelled to be content. tischendorf points out two passages in the epistles of pseudo-ignatius which, he considers, show the use of the fourth gospel.( ) they are as follows--epistle to the romans vii.: "i desire the bread of god, the bread of { } heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of jesus christ the son of god, who was born at a later time of the seed of david and abraham; and i desire the drink of god [------], that is his blood, which is love incorruptible, and eternal life" [------].( ) this is compared with john vi. : "i am the bread which came down from heaven" .... "i am the bread of life," .... "and the bread that i will give is my flesh;" . "he who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life" [------]. scholten has pointed out that the reference to jesus as "born of the seed of david and abraham" is not in the spirit of the fourth gospel; and the use of [------] for the [------] of vi. , and [------]; instead of [------] are also opposed to the connection with that gospel.( ) on the other hand, in the institution of the supper, the bread is described as the body of jesus, and the wine as his blood; and reference is made there, and elsewhere, to eating bread and drinking wine in the kingdom of god,( ) and the passage seems to be nothing but a development of this teaching.( ) nothing could be proved by such an analogy.( ) the second passage referred to by tischendorf is in the epistle to the philadelphians vii.: "for if some { } would have led me astray according to the flesh, yet the spirit is not led astray, being from god, for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and detecteth the things that are hidden."( ) teschendorf considers that these words are based upon john iii. -- , and the last phrase: "and detecteth the hidden things," upon verse . the sense of the epistle, however, is precisely the reverse of that of the gospel, which reads: "the wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest the sound thereof but _knowest not_ whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the spirit;"( ) whilst the epistle does not refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the spirit of god does know whence it cometh, &c. the analogy in verse is still more remote: "for every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be detected."( ) in cor. ii. , the sense is found more closely: "for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of god."( ) it is evidently unreasonable to assert from such a passage the use of the fourth gospel.( ) even tischendorf recognizes that in themselves the phrases which he points out in pseudo-ignatius could not, unsupported by other corroboration, possess much weight as testimony for the use of our gospels. he says: "were these allusions of ignatius to matthew and john a wholly isolated phenomenon, and one which perhaps other undoubted results { } of inquiry wholly contradicted, they would hardly have any conclusive weight. but--."( ) canon westcott says: "the ignatian writings, as might be expected, are not without traces of the influence of st. john. the circumstances in which he was placed required a special enunciation of pauline doctrine; but this is not so expressed as to exclude the parallel lines of christian thought. love is 'the stamp of the christian.' (ad magn. v.) 'faith is the beginning and love the end of life.' (ad ephes. xiv.) 'faith is our guide upward' [------], but love is the road that 'leads to god.' (ad eph. ix.) 'the eternal [------] word is the manifestation of god' (ad magn. viii.), 'the door by which we come to the father' (ad philad. ix., cf. john x. ), 'and without him we have not the principle of true life' (ad trail, ix.: [------]. cf. ad eph. iii.: [------]. the true meat of the christian is the 'bread of god, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of jesus christ,' and his drink is 'christ's blood, which is love incorruptible' (ad rom. vii., cf. john vi. , , ). he has no love of this life; 'his love has been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion for the world, but living water (as the spring of a new life) speaking within him, and bidding him come to his father' (ad rom. . c). meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his master, even the 'ruler of this age.' (ad rom. . c, [------]. cf. john xii. , xvi. : [------] and see cor. ii. , .( ))" part of these references we have already considered; { } others of them really do not require any notice whatever, and the only one to which we need to direct our attention for a moment may be the passage from the epistle to the philadelphians ix., which reads: "he is the door of the father, by which enter in abraham, isaac, and jacob and the prophets, and the apostles, and the church."(l) this is compared with john x. . "therefore said jesus again: verily, verily, i say unto you, i am the door of the sheep" [------]. we have already referred, a few pages back,( ) to the image of the door. here again it is obvious that there is a marked difference in the sense of the epistle from that of the gospel. in the latter jesus is said to be the door into the sheepfold;( ) whilst in the epistle, he is the door into the father, through which not only the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles enter, but also the church itself. such distant analogy cannot warrant the conclusion that the passage shows any acquaintance with the fourth gospel.( ) as for the other phrases, they are not only without special bearing upon the fourth gospel, but they are everywhere found in the canonical epistles, as well as elsewhere. regarding love and faith, for instance, compare gal. v. , , ; rom. xii. , , viii. , xiii. ; cor. ii. , viii. ; ephea iii. , v. , , vi. ; philip, i. , ii. ; thess. iii. ; tim. i. , vi. ; tim. i. ; heb. x. f., xi., &c., &c. we might point out many equally close analogies in { } the works of philo,( ) but it is unnecessary to do so, although we may indicate one or two which first present themselves. philo equally has "the eternal logos" [------],( ) whom he represents as the manifestation of god in every way. "the word is the likeness of god, by whom the universe was created" [------].( ) he is "the vicegerent" [------] of god,( ) "the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul," "the bread [------] from heaven." in one place he says: "and they who inquired what is the food of the soul... learnt at last that it is the word of god, and the divine logos.... this is the heavenly nourishment, and it is mentioned in the holy scriptures... saying, 'lo! i rain upon you bread [------] from heaven.' (exod. xvi. .) 'this is the bread [------] which the lord has given them to eat'" (exod. xvi. ).( ) and again: "for the one indeed raises his eyes towards the sky, contemplating the manna, the divine word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the longing soul."( ) elsewhere: "... but it is { } taught by the hierophant and prophet moses, who will say: 'this is the bread [------], the nourishment which god gave to the soul'--that he offered his own word and his own logos; for this is bread [------] which he has given us to eat, this is the word [------]."( ) he also says: "therefore he exhorts him that can run swiftly to strive with breathless eagerness towards the divine word who is above all things, the fountain of wisdom, in order that by drinking of the stream, instead of death he may for his reward obtain eternal life"( ) it is the logos who guides us to the father, god "by the same logos both creating all things and leading up [------] the perfect man from the things of earth to himself."( ) these are very imperfect examples, but it may be asserted that there is not a representation of the logos in the fourth gospel which has not close parallels in the works of philo. we have given these passages of the pseudo-ignatian epistles which are pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the fourth gospel, in order that the whole case might be stated and appreciated. the analogies are too distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more close, they could do little or nothing to establish an early origin for the fourth gospel, and nothing at all to elucidate the question as to its character and authorship.( ) in general the epistles follow the synoptic narratives, and not the account of the fourth gospel. see for instance the reference to the anointing of jesus, ad eph. xvii., cf. matt. xxvi. ff.; mark ziy. flf.; cf. john xii. ff. { } the epistles in which the passages occur are spurious and of no value as evidence for the fourth gospel. only-one of them is found in the three syriac epistles. we have already stated the facts connected with the so-called epistles of ignatius,( ) and no one who has attentively examined them can fail to see that the testimony of such documents cannot be considered of any historic weight, except for a period when evidence of the use of the fourth gospel ceases to be of any significance. there are fifteen epistles ascribed to ignatius--of these eight are universally recognized to be spurious. of the remaining seven, there are two greek and latin versions, the one much longer than the other. the longer version is almost unanimously rejected as interpolated. the discovery of a still shorter syriac version of "the three epistles of ignatius," convinced the majority of critics that even the shorter greek version of seven epistles must be condemned, and that whatever matter could be ascribed to ignatius himself, if any, must be looked for in these three epistles alone. the three martyrologies of ignatius are likewise universally repudiated as mere fictions. from such a mass of forgery, in which it is impossible to identify even a kernel of truth, no testimony could be produced which could in any degree establish the apostolic origin and authenticity of our gospels. it is not pretended that the so-called epistle of polycarp to the philippians contains any references to the fourth gospel. tischendorf, however, affirms that it is weighty testimony for that gospel, inasmuch as he discovers in it a certain trace of the first "epistle of { } john," and as he maintains that the epistle and the gospel are the works of the same author, any evidence for the one is at the same time evidence for the other.( ) we shall hereafter consider the point of the common authorship of the epistles and fourth gospel, and here confine ourselves chiefly to the alleged fact of the reference. the passage to which teschendorf alludes we subjoin, with the supposed parallel in the epistle.[------] { } this passage does not occur as a quotation, and the utmost that can be said of the few words with which it opens is that a phrase somewhat resembling, but at the same time materially differing from, the epistle of john is interwoven with the text of the epistle to the philippians. if this were really a quotation from the canonical epistle, it would indeed be singular that, considering the supposed relations of polycarp and john, the name of the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a quotation have been distinctly and correctly made.( ) on the other hand, there is no earlier trace of the canonical epistle, and, as volkmar argues, it may well be doubted whether it may not rather be dependent on the epistle to the philippians, than the latter upon the epistle of john.( ) we believe with scholten that neither is dependent on the other, but that both adopted a formula in use in the early church against various heresies, the superficial coincidence of which is without any weight as evidence for the use of either epistle by the writer of the other. moreover, it is clear that the writers refer to different classes of heretics. polycarp attacks the docetæ who deny that jesus christ has come in the flesh, that is with a human body of flesh and blood; whilst the epistle of john is directed against those who deny that jesus who has come in the flesh is the { } christ the son of god.( ) volkmar points out that in polycarp the word "antichrist" is made a proper name, whilst in the epistle the expression used is the abstract "spirit of antichrist." polycarp in fact says that whoever denies the flesh of christ is no christian but antichrist, and volkmar finds this direct assertion more original than the assertion of the epistle; "every spirit that confesseth that jesus christ is come in the flesh is of god,"( ) &c. in any case it seems to us clear that in both writings we have only the independent enunciation, with decided difference of language and sense, of a formula current in the church, and that neither writer can be held to have originated the condemnation, in these words, of heresies which the church had begun vehemently to oppose, and which were merely an application of ideas already well known, as we see from the expression of the epistle in reference to the "spirit of antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh." whether this phrase be an allusion to the apocalypse xiii., or to thessalonians ii., or to traditions current in the church, we need not inquire; it is sufficient that the epistle of john avowedly applies a prophecy regarding antichrist already known amongst christians, which was equally open to the other writer and probably familiar in the church. this cannot under any circumstances be admitted as evidence of weight for the use of the st epistle of john. there is no testimony whatever of the existence of the epistles ascribed to john previous to this date, and that fact would have to { } be established on sure grounds before the argument we are considering can have any value. on the other hand, we have already seen( ) that there is strong reason to doubt the authenticity of the epistle attributed to polycarp, and a certainty that in any case it is, in its present form, considerably interpolated. even if genuine in any part, the use of the st epistle of john, if established, could not be of much value as evidence for the fourth gospel, of which the writing does not show a trace. so far from there being any evidence that polycarp knew the fourth gospel, however, everything points to the opposite conclusion. about a.d. - we find him taking part in the paschal controversy,( ) contradicting the statements of the fourth gospel,( ) and supporting the synoptic view, contending that the christian festival should be celebrated on the th nisan, the day on which he affirmed that the apostle john himself had observed it.( ) irenæus, who represents polycarp as the disciple of john, says of him: "for neither was anicetus able to persuade polycarp not to observe it (on the th) because he had always observed it with john the disciple of our lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he consorted."( ) not only, therefore, does polycarp not refer to the fourth gospel, but he is on the the date has, hitherto, generally been fixed at a.d. , but the recent investigations referred to in vol. i. p. f. have led to the adoption of this earlier date, and the visit to rome must, therefore, probably have taken place just after the accession of anicetus to the roman bishopric. cf. lipsius, zeitschr. w. theol. , p. f. { } contrary an important witness against it as the work of john, for he represents that apostle as practically contradicting the gospel of which he is said to be the author. the fulness with which we have discussed the character of the evangelical quotations of justin martyr renders the task of ascertaining whether his works indicate any acquaintance with the fourth gospel comparatively easy. the detailed statements already made enable us without preliminary explanation directly to attack the problem, and we are freed from the necessity of making extensive quotations to illustrate the facts of the case. whilst apologists assert with some boldness that justin made use of our synoptics, they are evidently, and with good reason, less confident in maintaining his acquaintance with the fourth gospel. canon westcott states: "his references to st john are uncertain; but this, as has been already remarked, follows from the character of the fourth gospel. it was unlikely that he should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic writings addressed to jews and heathens; and at the same time he exhibits types of language and doctrine which, if not immediately drawn from st. john, yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition of his authority."( ) this apology for the neglect of the fourth gospel { } illustrates the obvious scantiness of the evidence furnished by justin. tischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims justin as a powerful witness for the fourth gospel. he says: "according to our judgment there are convincing grounds of proof for the fact that john also was known and used by justin, provided that an unprejudiced consideration be not made to give way to the antagonistic predilection against the johannine gospel." in order fully and fairly to state the case which he puts forward, we shall quote his own words, but to avoid repetition we shall permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and by parallel passages from other writings for comparison with justin. tischendorf says: "the representation of the person of christ altogether peculiar to john as it is given particularly in his prologue i. (" in the beginning was the word and the word was with god, and the word was god"), and verse ("and the word became flesh"), in the designation of him as logos, as the word of god, unmistakably re-echoes in not a few passages in justin; for instance:( ) 'and jesus christ is alone the special son begotten by god, being his word and first-begotten and power.'"( ) with this we may compare another passage of justin from the second apology. "but his son, who alone is rightly called son, the word before the works of creation, tischendorf uses great liberty in translating some of these passages, abbreviating and otherwise altering them as it suits him. we shall therefore give his german translation below, and we add the greek which tischendorf does not quote--indeed he does not, in most cases, even state where the passages are to be found. { } who was both with him and begotten when in the beginning he created and ordered all things by him,"( ) &c. now the same words and ideas are to be found throughout the canonical epistles and other writings, as well as in earlier works. in the apocalypse,( ) the only book of the new testament mentioned by justin, and which is directly ascribed by him to john,( ) the term logos is applied to jesus "the lamb," (xix. ): "and his name is called the word of god" [------]. elsewhere (iii. ) he is called "the beginning of the creation of god" [------]; and again in the same book (i. ) he is "the first-begotten of the dead" [------]. in heb. i he is the "first-born" [------], as in coloss. i. he is "the first-born of every creature" [------]; and in cor. i. we have: "christ the power of god and the wisdom of god"[------], and it will be remembered that "wisdom" was the earlier term which became an alternative with "word" for the intermediate being. in heb. i. , god is represented as speaking to us "in the son.... by whom he also made the worlds" [------]. in tim. i. , he is "before all worlds" [------], cf. heb. l , ii. , kom. xi. , cor. viii. , ephes. iii. . the works of philo are filled with similar representations of the logos, but we must restrict ourselves to a very { } few. god as a shepherd and king governs the universe "having appointed his true logos, his first begotten son, to have the care of this sacred flock, as the vicegerent of-a great king."( ) in another place philo exhorts men to strive to become like god's "first begotten word" [------],( ) and he adds, a few lines further on: "for the most ancient word is the image of god" [------]. the high priest of god in the world is "the divine word, his first-begotten son" [------].( ) speaking of the creation of the world philo says: "the instrument by which it was formed is the word of god" [------].( ) elsewhere: "for the word is the image of god by which the whole world was created" [------].( ) these passages might be indefinitely multiplied. tischendorf's next passage is: "the first power [------] after the father of all and god the lord, and son, is the word [------]; in what manner having been made flesh [------] he became man, we shall in what follows relate."( ) { } we find everywhere parallels for this passage without seeking them in the fourth gospel. in cor. i. , "christ the power [------] of god and the wisdom of god;" cf. heb. i. , , , , ; ii. . in heb. ii. -- , there is a distinct account of his becoming flesh; cf. verse . in phil. ii. -- : "who (jesus christ) being in the form of god, deemed it not grasping to be equal with god, ( ) but gave himself up, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," &c. in rom. viii. we have: "god sending his own son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," &c. [------] it must be borne in mind that the terminology of john i. , "and the word became flesh" [------] is different from that of justin, who uses the word [------]. the sense and language here is, therefore, quite as close as that of the fourth gospel we have also another parallel in tim. iii. , "who (god) was manifested in the flesh" [------], cf. cor. xv. , . in like manner we find many similar passages in the works of philo. he says in one place that man was not made in the likeness of the most high god the father of the universe, but in that of the "second god who is his word" [------].( ) in another place the logos is said to be the interpreter of the highest god, and he continues: "that must be god of us imperfect beings" [------].( ) elsewhere he says: "but the { } divine word which is above these (the winged cherubim).... but being itself the image of god, at once the most ancient of all conceivable things, and the one placed nearest to the only true and absolute existence without any separation or distance between them ";( ) and a few lines further on he explains the cities of refuge to be: "the word of the governor (of all things) and his creative and kingly power, for of these are the heavens and the whole world."( ) "the logos of god is above all things in the world, and is the most ancient and the most universal of all things which are."( ) the word is also the "ambassador sent by the governor (of the universe) to his subject (man)" [------].( ) such views of the logos are everywhere met with in the pages of philo. tischendorf continues: "the word (logos) of god is his son."( ) we have already in the preceding paragraphs abundantly illustrated this sentence, and may proceed to the next: "but since they did not know all things concerning the logos, which is christ, they have frequently contradicted each other."( ) these words are { } used with reference to lawgivers and philosophers. justin, who frankly admits the delight he took in the writings of plato( ) and other greek philosophers, held the view that socrates and plato had in an elementary form enunciated the doctrine of the logos,( ) although he contends that they borrowed it from the writings of moses, and with a largeness of mind very uncommon in the early church, and indeed, we might add, in any age, he believed socrates and such philosophers to have been christians, even although they had been considered atheists.( ) as they did not of course know christ to be the logos, he makes the assertion just quoted. now the only point in the passage which requires notice is the identification of the logos with jesus, which has already been dealt with, and as this was asserted in the apocalypse xix. , before the fourth gospel was written, no evidence in its favour is deducible from the statement. we shall have more to say regarding this presently. tischendorf continues: "but in what manner through the word of god, jesus christ our saviour having been made flesh,"( ) &c. it must be apparent that the doctrine here is not that of the fourth gospel which makes "the word become flesh" simply, whilst justin, representing a less advanced form, and more uncertain stage, of its development, draws a distinction between the logos and jesus, and describes jesus christ as being made flesh by the power { } of the logos. this is no accidental use of words, for he repeatedly states the same fact, as for instance: "but why through the power of the word, according to the will of god the father and lord of all, he was born a man of a virgin,"( ) &c. tischendorf continues: "to these passages out of the short second apology we extract from the first (cap. ).( ) by the spirit, therefore, and power of god (in reference to luke i. : 'the holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee') we have nothing else to understand but the logos, which is the first-born of god."( ) here again we have the same difference from the doctrine of the fourth gospel which we have just pointed out, which is, however, so completely in agreement with the views of philo,( ) and characteristic of a less developed form of the idea. we shall further refer to the terminology hereafter, and meantime we proceed to the last illustration given by tischendorf. "out of the dialogue (c. ): 'for that he was the only-begotten of the father of all, in peculiar wise begotten of him as word and power [------], and afterwards became man through the virgin, as we have learnt from the memoirs, i have already stated.'"( ) { } the allusion here is to the preceding chapters of the dialogue, wherein, with special reference (c. ) to the passage which has a parallel in luke i. , quoted by tischendorf in the preceding illustration, justin narrates the birth of jesus. this reference very appropriately leads us to a more general discussion of the real source of the terminology and logos doctrine of justin. we do not propose, in this work, to enter fully into the history of the logos doctrine, and we must confine ourselves strictly to showing, in the most simple manner possible, that not only is there no evidence whatever that justin derived his ideas regarding it from the fourth gospel, but that, on the contrary, his terminology and doctrine may be traced to another source. now, in the very chapter ( ) from which this last illustration is taken, justin shows clearly whence he derives the expression: "only-begotten." in chap. he refers to the ps. xxii. (sept. xxi.) as a prophecy applying to jesus, quotes the whole psalm, and comments upon it in the following chapters; refers to ps. ii. : "thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee," uttered by the voice at the baptism, in ch. , in illustration of it; and in ch. he arrives, in his exposition of it, at verse : "deliver my soul from the sword, and my( ) only-begotten [------] from the hand of the dog." then follows the passage we are discussing, in which justin affirms that this should probably be "thy." { } he has proved that he was the only-begotten [------] of the father, and at the close he again quotes the verse as indicative of his sufferings. the memoirs are referred to in regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, and his birth as man through the virgin. the phrase in justin is quite different from that in the fourth gospel, i. : "and the word became flesh [------] and tabernacled among us, find we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the father" [------], &c. in justin he is "the only-begotten of the father of all" [------], and he "became man [------] through the virgin," and justin never once employs the peculiar terminology of the fourth gospel, [------], in any part of his writings. there can be no doubt that, however the christian doctrine of the logos may at one period of its development have been influenced by greek philosophy, it was in its central idea mainly of jewish origin, and the mere application to an individual of a theory which had long occupied the hebrew mind. after the original simplicity which represented god as holding personal intercourse with the patriarchs, and communing face to face with the great leaders of israel, had been outgrown, an increasing tendency set in to shroud the divinity in impenetrable mystery, and to regard him as unapproachable and undiscernible by man. this led to the recognition of a divine representative and substitute of the highest god and father, who communicated with his creatures, and through whom alone he revealed himself. a new system of interpretation of the ancient traditions of the nation was rendered necessary, and in the septuagint translation of the bible we are fortunately able to trace { } the progress of the theory which culminated in the christian doctrine of the logos. wherever in the sacred records god had been represented as holding intercourse with man, the translators either symbolized the appearance or interposed an angel, who was afterwards understood to be the divine word. the first name under which the divine mediator was known in the old testament was wisdom [------], although in its apocrypha the term logos was not unknown. the personification of the idea was very rapidly effected, and in the book of proverbs, as well as in the later apocrypha based upon it: the wisdom of solomon, and the wisdom of sirach, "ecclesiasticus:" we find it in ever increasing clearness and concretion. in the school of alexandria the active jewish intellect eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the writings of philo especially we find the doctrine of the logos--the term which by that time had almost entirely supplanted that of wisdom--elaborated to almost its final point, and wanting little or nothing but its application in an incarnate form to an individual man to represent the doctrine of the earlier canonical writings of the new testament, and notably the epistle to the hebrews,--the work of a christian philo,( )--the pauline epistles, and lastly the fourth gospel( ) { } in proverbs viii. ff., we have a representation of wisdom corresponding closely with the prelude to the fourth gospel, and still more so with the doctrine enunciated by justin: . "the lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works. . before the ages he established me, in the beginning before he made the earth. . and before he made the abysses, before the springs of the waters issued forth. . before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me. . the lord made the lands, both those which are uninhabited and the inhabited heights of the earth beneath the sky. . when he prepared the heavens i was present with him, and when he set his throne upon the winds, , and made strong the high clouds, and the deeps under the heaven made secure, , and made strong the foundations of the earth, , i was with him adjusting, i was that in which he delighted; daily i rejoiced in his presence at all times."( ) in the "wisdom of solomon" we find the writer addressing god: ix. ... "who madest all things by thy word" [------]; and further on in the same chapter, v. , "and wisdom was with thee who knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable { } in thy sight, and right in thy commandments. "( ) in verse , the writer prays: "give me wisdom that sitteth by thy thrones" [-----].( ) in a similar way the son of sirach makes wisdom say (ecclesiast. xxiv. ): "he (the most high) created me from the beginning before the world, and as long as the world i shall not fail."( ) we have already incidentally seen how these thoughts grew into an elaborate doctrine of the logos in the works of philo. now justin, whilst he nowhere adopts the terminology of the fourth gospel, and nowhere refers to its introductory condensed statement of the logos doctrine, closely follows philo and, like him, traces it back to the old testament in the most direct way, accounting for the interposition of the divine mediator in precisely the same manner as philo, and expressing the views which had led the seventy to modify the statement of the hebrew original in their greek translation. he is, in fact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of the logos doctrine and its earlier enunciation under the symbol of wisdom, and his knowledge of it is clearly independent of, and antecedent to, the statements of the fourth gospel. referring to various episodes of the old testament in which god is represented as appearing to moses and the patriarchs, and in which it is said that "god went up from abraham,"( ) or "the lord spake to moses,"( ) or "the lord came down to behold the town," &c.,( ) or "god { } shut noah into the ark,"( ) and so on, justin warns his antagonist that he is not to suppose that "the unbegotten god" [------] did any of these things, for he has neither to come to any place, nor walks, but from his own place, wherever it may be, knows everything although he has neither eyes nor ears. therefore he. could not talk with anyone, nor be seen by anyone, and none of the patriarchs saw the father at all, but they saw "him who was according to his will both his son (being god) and the angel, in that he ministered to his purpose, whom also he willed to be born man by the virgin, who became fire when he spoke with moses from the bush."( ) he refers throughout his writings to the various appearances of god to the patriarchs, all of which he ascribes to the pre-existent jesus, the word,( ) and in the very next chapter, after alluding to some of these, he says: "he is called angel because he came to men, since by him the decrees of the father are announced to men... at other times he is also called man and human being, because he appears clothed in these forms as the father wills, and they call him logos because { } he bears the communications of the father to mankind."( ) justin, moreover, repeatedly refers to the fact that he was called wisdom by solomon, and quotes the passage we have indicated in proverbs. in one place he says, in proof of his assertion that the god who appeared to moses and the patriarchs was distinguished from the father, and was in fact the word (ch. -- ): "another testimony i will give you, my friends, i said, from the scriptures that god begat before all of the creatures [------] a beginning [------],( ) a certain rational power [------] out of himself, who is called by the holy spirit, now the glory of the lord, then the son, again wisdom, again angel, again god, and again lord and logos;" &c., and a little further on: "the word of wisdom will testify to me, who is himself this god begotten of the father of the universe, being word, and wisdom, and power [------], and the glory of the begetter," &c.,( ) and he quotes, from the septuagint version, proverbs viii. -- , part of which we have given above, and indeed, elsewhere (ch. ), he quotes the passage a second time as evidence, with a similar context. justin refers to it { } again in the next chapter, and the peculiarity of his terminology in all these passages, so markedly different from, and indeed opposed to, that of the fourth gospel, will naturally strike the reader: "but this offspring [------] being truly brought forth by the father was with the father before all created beings [------], and the father communes with him, as the logos declared through solomon, that this same, who is called wisdom by solomon, had been begotten of god before all created beings [------], both beginning [------] and offspring [------]," &c.( ) in another place after quoting the words: "no man knoweth the father but the son, nor the son but the father, and they to whom the son will reveal him," justin continues: "therefore he revealed to us all that we have by his grace understood out of the scriptures, recognizing him to be indeed the first-begotten [------] of god, and before all creatures [------].... and calling him son, we have understood that he proceeded from the father by his power and will before all created beings [------], for in one form or another he is spoken of in the writings of the prophets as wisdom," &c.;( ) and again, in two other places he refers to the same fact.( ) on further examination, we find on every side still { } stronger confirmation of the conclusion that justin derived his logos doctrine from the old testament and philo, together with early new testament writings. we have quoted several passages in which justin details the various names of the logos, and we may add one more. referring to ps. lxxii., which the jews apply to solomon, but which justin maintains to be applicable to christ, he says: "for christ is king, and priest, and god, and lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a son born [------], &c. &c., as i prove by all of the scriptures."( ) now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout justin's writings, are quite opposed to the spirit of the fourth gospel, but are on the other hand equally common in the works of philo, and many of them also to be found in the philonian epistle to the hebrews. taking the chief amongst them we may briefly illustrate them. the logos as king, justin avowedly derives from ps. lxxii., in which he finds that reference is made to the "everlasting king, that is to say christ."( ) we find this representation of the logos throughout the writings of philo. in one place already briefly referred to,( ) but which we shall now more fully quote, he says: "for god as shepherd and king governs according to law and justice like a flock of sheep, the earth, and water, and air, and fire, and all the plants and living things that are in them, whether they be mortal or divine, as well as the course of heaven, and the periods of sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious revolutions of the other stars; having appointed his true word [------] { } [------] his first-begotten son [------] to have the care of this sacred flock as the vicegerent of a great king;"( ) and a little further on, he says: "very reasonably, therefore, he will assume the name of a king, being addressed as a shepherd."( ) in another place, philo speaks of the "logos of the governor, and his creative and kingly power, for of these is the heaven and the whole world."( ) then if we take the second epithet, the logos as priest [------], which is quite foreign to the fourth gospel, we find it repeated by justin, as for instance: "christ the eternal priest" [------],( ) and it is not only a favourite representation of philo, but is almost the leading idea of the epistle to the hebrews, in connection with the episode of melchisedec, in whom also both philo,( ) and justin,( ) recognize the logos. in the epistle to the hebrews, vii. , speaking of melchisedec: "but likened to the son of god, abideth a priest for ever:"( ) again in iv. : "seeing then that we have a great high priest that is passed through the heavens, jesus the son { } of god," &c.;( ) ix. : "christ having appeared a high priest of the good things to come;"( ) xii. : "thou art a priest for ever."( ) the passages are indeed far too numerous to quote.( ) they are equally numerous in the writings of philo. in one place already quoted,( ) he says: "for there are as it seems two temples of god, one of which is this world, in which the high priest is the divine word, his first-begotten son" [------].( ) elsewhere, speaking of the period for the return of fugitives, the death of the high priest, which taken literally would embarrass him in his allegory, philo says: "for we maintain the high priest not to be a man, but the divine word, who is without participation not only in voluntary but also in involuntary sins;"( ) and he goes on to speak of this priest as "the most sacred word" [------].( ) indeed, in many long passages he descants upon the "high priest word" [------].( ) proceeding to the next representations of the logos { } as "god and lord," we meet with the idea everywhere. in hebrews i. : "but regarding the son he saith: thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever" [------], and again in the epistle to the philippians, ii. , "who (jesus christ) being in the form of god, deemed it not grasping to be equal with god" [------].( ) philo, in the fragment preserved by eusebius, to which we have already referred,( ) calls the logos the "second god" [------].( ) in another passage he has: "but he calls the most ancient god his present logos," &c. [------];( ) and a little further on, speaking of the inability of men to look on the father himself: "thus they regard the image of god, his angel word, as himself" [------].( ) elsewhere discussing the possibility of god's swearing by himself, which he applies to the logos, he says: "for in regard to us imperfect beings he will be a god, but in regard to wise and perfect beings the first. and yet moses, in awe of the superiority of the unbegotten [------] god, says: 'and thou shalt swear by his name,' not by himself; for it is sufficient for the creature to receive assurance and testimony by the divine word."( ) it must be remarked, however, that both justin and { } philo place the logos in a position more clearly secondary to god the father, than the prelude to the fourth gospel i. . both justin and philo apply the term [------] to the logos without the article. justin distinctly says that christians worship jesus christ as the son of the true god, holding him in the second place [------],( ) and this secondary position is systematically defined through justin's writings in a very decided way, as it is in the works of philo by the contrast of the begotten logos with the unbegotten god. justin speaks of the word as "the first-born of the unbegotten god" [------],( ) and the distinctive appellation of the "unbegotten god" applied to the father is most common throughout his writings.( ) we may in continuation of this remark point out another phrase of justin which is continually repeated, but is thoroughly opposed both to the spirit and to the terminology of the fourth gospel, and which likewise indicates the secondary consideration in which he held the logos. he calls the word constantly "the first-born of all created beings" [------] "the first-born of all creation," echoing the expression of col. i. . (the son) "who is the image of the invisible god, the first-born of all creation" [------]. this is a totally different view from that of the fourth gospel, which in so emphatic a manner { } enunciates the doctrine: "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god, and the word was god," a statement which justin, with philo, only makes in a very modified sense. to return, however, the next representation of the logos by justin is as "angel." this perpetually recurs in his writings.( ) in one place, to which we have already referred, he says: "the word of god is his son, as we have already stated, and he is also called messenger [------] and apostle, for he brings the message of all we need to know, and is sent an apostle to declare all the message contains."( ) in the same chapter reference is again made to passages quoted for the sake of proving: "that jesus christ is the son of god and apostle, being aforetime the word and having appeared now in the form of fire, and now in the likeness of incorporeal beings;"( ) and he gives many illustrations.( ) the passages, however, in which the logos is called angel, are too numerous to be more fully dealt with here. it is scarcely necessary to point out that this representation of the logos as angel, is not only foreign to, but opposed to the spirit of, the fourth gospel, although it is thoroughly in harmony with the writings of philo. before illustrating this, however, we may incidentally remark that the ascription to the logos of the name "apostle" which occurs in the two passages just quoted above, as well as in other parts of the writings of justin,( ) { } is likewise opposed to the fourth gospel, although it is found in earlier writings, exhibiting a less developed form of the logos doctrine; for the epistle to the hebrews iii. , has: "consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, jesus," &c. [------]. we are, in fact, constantly directed by the remarks of justin to other sources of the logos doctrine, and never to the fourth gospel, with which his tone and terminology do not agree. everywhere in the writings of philo we meet with the logos as angel. he speaks "of the angel word of god" in a sentence already quoted,( ) and elsewhere in a passage, one of many others, upon which the lines of justin which we are now considering (as well as several similar passages)( ) are in all probability moulded. philo calls upon men to "strive earnestly to be fashioned according to god's first-begotten word, the eldest angel, who is the archangel bearing many names, for he is called { } the beginning [------], and name of god, and logos, and the man according to his image, and the seer of israel."( ) elsewhere, in a remarkable passage, he says: "to his archangel and eldest word, the father, who created the universe, gave the supreme gift that having stood on the confine he may separate the creature from the creator. the same is an intercessor on behalf of the ever wasting mortal to the immortal; he is also the ambassador of the ruler to his subjects. and he rejoices in the gift, and the majesty of it he describes, saying: 'and i stood in the midst between the lord and you' (numbers xvi ); being neither unbegotten like god, nor begotten like you, but between the two extremes," &c.( ) we have been tempted to give more of this passage than is necessary for our immediate purpose, because it affords the reader another glimpse of philo's doctrine of the logos, and generally illustrates its position in connection with the christian doctrine. the last of justin's names which we shall here notice is the logos as "man" as well as god. in another place justin explains that he is sometimes called a man and human being, because he appears in these forms as the father wills.( ) but here confining ourselves merely { } to the concrete idea, we find a striking representation of it in tim. ii. : "for there is one god and one mediator between god and man, the man christ jesus; [------]; and again in rom. v. : "... by the grace of the one man jesus christ" [------], as well as other passages.( ) we have already seen in the passage quoted above from "de confus. ling." § , that philo mentions, among the many names of the logos, that of "the man according to (god's) image" [------],( ) or "the typical man"). if, however, we pass to the application of the logos doctrine to jesus, we have the strongest reason for inferring justin's total independence of the fourth gospel. we have already pointed out that the title of logos is given to jesus in new testament writings earlier than the fourth gospel. we have remarked that, although the passages are innumerable in which justin speaks of the word having become man through the virgin, he never once throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expression of the fourth gospel: "the word became flesh" [------]. on the few occasions on which he speaks of the word having been _made_ flesh, he uses the term [------].( ) in one instance he has [------],( ) and speaking of the eucharist justin once explains that it is in memory of christ's having made himself _body_, [------] justin's most common phrase, { } however, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is that the logos submitted to be born, and become man [------], by a virgin, or he uses variously the expressions: [------].( ) in several places he speaks of him as the first production or offspring [------] of god before all created beings, as, for instance: "the logos... who is the first offspring of god" [------];( ) and again, "and that this offspring was begotten of the father absolutely before all creatures the word was declaring" [------].( ) we need not say more of the expressions: "first-born" [------], "first-begotten" [------], so constantly applied to the logos by justin, in agreement with philo; nor to "only begotten" [------], directly derived from ps. xxii*. (ps. xxi. , sept.). it must be apparent to everyone who seriously examines the subject, that justin's terminology is markedly different from, and in spirit sometimes opposed to, that of the fourth gospel, and in fact that the peculiarities of the gospel are not found in justin's writings at all.( ) on the { } other hand, his doctrine of the logos is precisely that of philo,( ) and of writings long antecedent to the fourth gospel, and there can be no doubt, we think, that it was derived from them.( ) { } we may now proceed to consider other passages adduced by tischendorf to support his assertion that justin made use of the fourth gospel. he says: "passages of the johannine gospel, however, are also not wanting to which passages in justin refer back. in the dialogue, ch. , he writes of john the baptist: 'the people believed that he was the christ, but he cried to them: i am not the christ, but the voice of a preacher.' this is connected with john i. and ; for no other evangelist has reported the first words in the baptist's reply."( ) now the passage in justin, with its context, reads as follows: "for john sat by the jordan [------] and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and wild honey; men supposed [------] him to be the christ, wherefore he himself cried to them: 'i am not the christ, but the voice of one crying: for he shall come [------] who is stronger than i, whose shoes i am not meet [------] to bear.'"( ) now the only ground upon which this passage can be compared with the fourth gospel is the reply: "i am not the christ" [------], which in john i. reads:[------] { } [------]: and it is perfectly clear that, if the direct negation occurred in any other gospel, the difference of the whole passage in the dialogue would prevent even an apologist from advancing any claim to its dependence on that gospel. in order to appreciate the nature of the two passages, it may be well to collect the nearest parallels in the gospel, and compare them with justin's narrative. [------] { } the introductory description of john's dress and habits is quite contrary to the fourth gospel, but corresponds to some extent with matt. iii. . it is difficult to conceive two accounts more fundamentally different, and the discrepancy becomes more apparent when we consider the scene and actors in the episode. in justin, it is evident that the hearers of john had received the impression that he was the christ, and the baptist becoming aware of it voluntarily disabused their minds of this idea. in the fourth gospel the words of john are extracted from him ("he confessed and denied not") by emissaries sent by the pharisees of jerusalem specially to question him on the subject. the account of justin betrays no knowledge of any such interrogation. the utter difference is brought to a climax by the concluding statement of the fourth gospel:-- [------] in fact the scene in the two narratives is as little the same as their details. one can scarcely avoid the conclusion, in reading the fourth gospel, that it quotes some other account and does not pretend to report the scene direct. for instance, i. , "john beareth witness of him, and cried, saying: 'this was he _of whom i said_: he that cometh after me is become before me, because he was before me,'" &c. v. : "and this is the testimony of john, _when the jews sent priests and levites from jerusalem to ask him: who art thou?_ and he confessed and denied not, and confessed that i am not the christ," &c. now, as usual, the gospel which justin uses more nearly approximates to our first synoptic { } than the other gospels, although it differs in very important points from that also--still, taken in connection with the third synoptic, and acts xiii. , this indicates the great probability of the existence of other writings combining the particulars as they occur in justin. luke iii. , reads: "and as the people were in expectation, and all mused in their hearts concerning john whether he were the christ, . john answered, saying to them all: i indeed baptize you with water, but he that is stronger than i cometh, the latchet of whose shoes i am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the holy spirit and with fire," &c. whilst, however, with the sole exception of the simple statement of the baptist that he was not the christ, which in all the accounts is clearly involved in the rest of the reply, there is no analogy whatever between the parallel in the fourth gospel and the passage in justin, many important circumstances render it certain that justin did not derive his narrative from that source. we have already( ) fully discussed the peculiarities of justin's account of the baptist, and in the context to the very passage before us there are details quite foreign to our gospels which show that justin made use of another and different work. when jesus stepped into the water to be baptized a fire was kindled in the jordan, and the voice from heaven makes use of words not found in our gospels; but both the incident and the words are known to have been contained in the gospel according to the hebrews and other works. justin likewise states, in immediate continuation of the passage before us, that jesus was considered the son of { } joseph the carpenter, and himself was a carpenter and accustomed to make ploughs and yokes.( ) the evangelical work of which justin made use was obviously different from our gospels, therefore, and the evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that there is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that justin quoted the passage before us from the fourth gospel, from which he so fundamentally differs, but every reason on the contrary to believe that he derived it from a gospel different from ours.( ) the next point advanced by tischendorf is, that on two occasions he speaks of the restoration of sight to persons born blind, the only instance of which in our gospels is that recorded, john ix. . the references in justin are very vague and general. in the first place he is speaking of the analogies in the life of jesus with events believed in connection with mythological deities, and he says that he would appear to relate acts very similar to those attributed to Æsculapius when he says that jesus "healed the lame and paralytic, and the maimed from birth [------], and raised the dead."( ) in the dialogue, again referring to Æsculapius, he says that christ "healed those who were from birth and according to the flesh blind [------], and deaf, and lame."( ) in the fourth gospel { } the born-blind is described as [------]. there is a variation it will be observed in the term employed by justin, and that such a remark should be seized upon as an argument for the use of the fourth gospel serves to show the poverty of the evidence for the existence of that work. without seeking any further, we might at once reply that such general references as those of justin might well be referred to the common tradition of the church, which certainly ascribed all kinds of marvellous cures and miracles to jesus. it is moreover unreasonable to suppose that the only gospel in which the cure of one born blind was narrated was that which is the fourth in our canon. such a miracle may have formed part of a dozen similar collections extant at the time of justin, and in no case could such an allusion be recognized as evidence of the use of the fourth gospel. but in the dialogue, along with this remark, justin couples the statement that although the people saw such cures: "they asserted them to be magical illusion; for they also ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people."( ) this is not found in our gospels, but traces of the same tradition are met with elsewhere, as we have already mentioned;( ) and it is probable that justin either found all these particulars in the gospel of which he made use, or that he refers to traditions familiar amongst the early christians. tischendorfs next point is that justin quotes the words of zechariah xii. , with the same variation from the text of the septuagint as john xix. --"they shall look on him whom they pierced" [------] { } [------] instead of [------], arising out of an emendation of the translation of the hebrew original. tischendorf says: "nothing can be more opposed to probability, than the supposition that john and justin have here, independently of each other, followed a translation of the hebrew text which elsewhere has remained unknown to us."( ) the fact is, however, that the translation which has been followed is not elsewhere unknown. we meet with the same variation, much earlier, in the only book of the new testament which justin mentions, and with which, therefore, he was beyond any doubt well acquainted, rev. i. : "behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him [------], and they which pierced [------] him, and all the tribes of the earth shall bewail him. yea, amen." this is a direct reference to the passage in zech. xii. . it will be remembered that the quotation in the gospel: "they shall look upon him whom they pierced," is made solely in reference to the thrust of the lance in the side of jesus, while that of the apocalypse is a connection of the prophecy with the second coming of christ, which, except in a spiritual sense, is opposed to the fourth gospel. now, justin upon each occasion quotes the whole passage also in reference to the second coming of christ as the apocalypse does, and this alone settles the point so far as these two sources are concerned. if justin derived his variation from either of the canonical works, { } therefore, we should be bound to conclude that it must have been from the apocalypse. the correction of the septuagint version, which has thus been traced back as far as a.d. when the apocalypse was composed, was noticed by jerome in his commentary on the text;( ) and aquila, a contemporary of irenæus, and later symmachus and theodotion, as well as others, similarly adopted [------]. ten important mss., of the septuagint, at least, have the reading of justin and of the apocalypse, and these mss. likewise frequently agree with the other peculiarities of justin's text. in all probability, as credner, who long ago pointed out all these circumstances, conjectured, an emendation of the rendering of the lxx. had early been made, partly in christian interest and partly for the critical improvement of the text,( ) and this amended version was used by justin and earlier christian writers. ewald( ) and some others suggest that probably [------] originally stood in the septuagint text. every consideration is opposed to the dependence of justin upon the fourth gospel for the variation.( ) the next and last point advanced by tischendorf is a passage in apol. i. , which is compared with john iii. { } -- , and in order to show the exact character of the two passages, we shall at once place them in parallel columns:--[------] this is the most important passage by which apologists endeavour to establish the use by justin of the { } fourth gospel, and it is that upon which the whole claim may be said to rest. we shall be able to appreciate the nature of the case by the weakness of its strongest evidence. the first point which must have struck any attentive reader, must have been the singular difference of the language of justin, and the absence of the characteristic peculiarities of the johannine gospel. the double "verily, verily," which occurs twice even in these three verses, and constantly throughout the gospel( ), is absent in justin; and apart from the total difference of the form in which the whole passage is given (the episode of nicodemus being entirely ignored), and omitting minor differences, the following linguistic variations occur: justin has: [------] indeed it is almost impossible to imagine a more complete difference, both in form and language, and it seems to us that there does not exist a single linguistic trace by which the passage in justin can be connected with the fourth gospel. the fact that justin knows nothing of the expression [------] ("born from above"), upon which the whole statement in the fourth gospel turns, but uses a totally different word, [------] (born again), { } is of great significance. tischendorf wishes to translate [------] "anew" (or again), as the version of luther and the authorised english translation read, and thus render the [------] of justin a fair equivalent for it; but even this would not alter the fact that so little does justin quote the fourth gospel, that he has not even the test word of the passage. the word [------], however, certainly cannot here be taken to signify anything but "from above"(l)--from god, from heaven,--and this is not only its natural meaning, but the term is several times used in other parts of the fourth gospel, always with this same sense,( ) and there is nothing which warrants a different interpretation in this place. on the contrary, the same signification is manifestly indicated by the context, and forms the point of the whole lesson. "except a man be born of water and _of spirit_( ) he cannot enter into the kingdom of god. . that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the spirit is spirit. . marvel not that i said unto thee: ye must be born from above" [------]. the explanation of [------] is given in verse . the birth "of the spirit" is the birth "from above," which is essential to entrance into the kingdom of god.( ) { } the sense of the passage in justin is different and much more simple. he is speaking of regeneration through baptism, and the manner in which converts are consecrated to god when they are made new [------] through christ. after they are taught to fast and pray for the remission of their sins, he says: "they are then taken by us where there is water, that they may be regenerated ("born again," [------]), by the same manner of regeneration (being born again, [------]) by which we also were regenerated (born again, [------]. for in the name of the father of the universe the lord god, and of our saviour jesus christ, and of the holy spirit they then make the washing with the water. for the christ also said, 'unless ye be born again [------], ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven., now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to go into the matrices of the parents is evident to all." and then he quotes isaiah i. -- , "wash you, make you clean, &c.," and then proceeds: "and regarding this (baptism) we have been taught this reason. since at our first birth we were born without our knowledge, and perforce, &c., and brought up in evil habits and wicked ways, therefore in order that we should not continue children of necessity and ignorance, but become children of election and knowledge, and obtain in the water remission of sins which we had previously committed, the name of the father of the universe and lord god is pronounced over him who desires to be born again [------], and has repented of his sins, &c."( ) now it is clear that whereas justin speaks simply of regeneration by baptism, the fourth gospel indicates a later development of the doctrine by spiritualizing the idea, { } and requiring not only regeneration through the water ("except a man be born of water"), but that a man should be born from above ("and of the spirit"), not merely [------], but [------]. the word used by justin is that which was commonly employed in the church for regeneration, and other instances of it occur in the new testament.( ) the idea of regeneration or being born again, as essential to conversion, was quite familiar to the jews themselves, and lightfoot gives instances of this from talmudic writings: "if any one become a proselyte he is like a child 'new born.' the gentile that is made a proselyte and the servant that is made free he is like a child new born."( ) this is, of course, based upon the belief in special privileges granted to the jews, and the gentile convert admitted to a share in the benefits of the messiah became a jew by spiritual new birth. justin in giving the words of jesus clearly professed to make an exact quotation:( ) "for christ also said: unless ye be born again, &c." it must be remembered, however, that justin is addressing the roman emperors, who would not understand the expression that it was necessary to be "born again" in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. he, therefore, explains that he does not mean a physical new birth by men already born; and this explanation may be regarded as natural, under the circumstances, and independent of any written source. in any case, the striking difference of his language from that of the fourth gospel at least forbids the inference that it must necessarily have been derived from that gospel. { } to argue otherwise would be to assume the utterly untenable premiss that sayings of jesus which are maintained to be historical were not recorded in more than four gospels, and indeed in this instance were limited to one. this is not only in itself inadmissible, but historically untrue,( ) and a moment of consideration must convince every impartial mind that it cannot legitimately be asserted that an express quotation of a supposed historical saying must have been taken from a parallel in one of our gospels, from which it differs so materially in language and circumstance, simply because that gospel happens to be the only one now surviving which contains particulars somewhat similar. the express quotation fundamentally differs from the fourth gospel, and the natural explanation of justin which follows is not a quotation at all, and likewise fundamentally differs from the johannine parallel. justin not only ignores the peculiar episode in the fourth gospel in which the passage occurs, but neither here nor anywhere throughout his writings makes any mention of nicodemus. the accident of survival is almost the only justification of the affirmation that the fourth gospel is the source of justin's quotation. on the other hand, we have many strong indications of another source. in our first synoptic (xviii. ), we find traces of another version of the saying of jesus, much more nearly corresponding with the quotation of justin: "and he said, verily i say unto you: except ye be turned and become as the little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."( ) the last phrase of this saying is literally the same as the quotation of justin, { } and gives his expression, "kingdom of heaven," so characteristic of his gospel, and so foreign to the johannine. we meet with a similar quotation in connection with baptism, still more closely agreeing with justin, in the clementine homilies, xi. : "verily i say unto you: except ye be born again [------] by living water in the name of father, son, and holy spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."( ) here again we have both the [------], and the [------] as well as the reference only to water in the baptism, and this is strong confirmation of the existence of a version of the passage, different from the johannine, from which justin quotes. as both the author of the clementines and justin probably made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, some most competent critics have, with reason, adopted the conclusion that the passage we are discussing was probably derived from that gospel; at any rate it cannot be maintained as a quotation from our fourth gospel,( ) and it is, therefore, of no value as evidence even { } for its existence. "were it successfully traced to that work, however, the passage would throw no light on the authorship and character of the fourth gospel. if we turn for a moment from this last of the points of evidence adduced by tischendorf for the use of the fourth gospel by justin, to consider how far the circumstances of the history of jesus narrated by justin bear upon this quotation, we have a striking confirmation of the results we have otherwise attained. not only is there a total absence from his writings of the peculiar terminology and characteristic expressions of the fourth gospel, but there is not an allusion made to any one of the occurrences exclusively narrated by that gospel, although many of these, and many parts of the johannine discourses of jesus, would have been peculiarly suitable for his purpose. we have already pointed out the remarkable absence of any use of the expressions by which the logos doctrine is stated in the prologue. we may now point out that justin makes no reference whatever to any of the special miracles of the fourth gospel. he is apparently quite ignorant even of the raising of lazarus: on the other hand, he gives representations of the birth, life, and death of jesus, which are ignored by the johannine gospel, and are indeed opposed to its whole conception of jesus as the logos; and when he refers to circumstances which are also narrated in that gospel, his account is different from that which it gives. justin perpetually refers to the birth of jesus by the virgin of the race of david and the patriarchs; his logos thus becomes man,( ) (not "flesh"--[------],not [------]); he is born in a cave in bethlehem;( ) he grows in stature and intellect by the use of ordinary means like other men; he is accounted { } the son of joseph the carpenter and mary: he himself works as a carpenter, and makes ploughs and yokes.( ) when jesus is baptized by john, a fire is kindled in jordan; and justin evidently knows nothing of john's express declaration in the fourth gospel, that jesus is the messiah, the son of god.( ) justin refers to the change of name of simon in connection with his recognition of the master as "christ the son of god,"( ) which is narrated quite differently in the fourth gospel (i. -- ), where, indeed, such a declaration is put into the mouth of nathaniel (i. ), which justin ignores. justin does not mention nicodemus either in connection with the statement regarding the necessity of being "born from above," or with the entombment (xix. ). he has the prayer and agony in the garden,( ) which the fourth gospel excludes, as well as the cries on the cross, which that gospel ignores. then, according to justin, the last supper takes place on the th nisan,( ) whilst the fourth gospel, ignoring the passover and last supper, represents the last meal as eaten on the th nisan (john xiii. f., cf. xviii. ). he likewise contradicts the fourth gospel, in limiting the work of jesus to one year. in fact, it is impossible for writings, so full of quotations of the words of jesus and of allusions to the events of his life, more completely to ignore or vary from the fourth gospel throughout; and if it could be shown that justin was acquainted with such a work, it would follow certainly that he did not consider it an apostolical or authoritative composition. "and it is written that on the day of the passover you seized him, and likewise during the passover you crucified him." dial., ill; cf. dial. ; matt, xxvi. , ff., , . { } we may add that, as justin so distinctly and directly refers to the apostle john as the author of the apocalypse,( ) there is confirmation of the conclusion, otherwise arrived at, that he did not, and could not, know the gospel and also ascribe it to him. finally, the description which justin gives of the manner of teaching of jesus excludes the idea that he knew the fourth gospel. "brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he was no sophist, but his word was the power of god."( ) no one could for a moment assert that this description applies to the long and artificial discourses of the fourth gospel, whilst, on the other hand, it eminently describes the style of teaching in the synoptics, with which the numerous gospels in circulation amongst early christians were, of course, more nearly allied. the inevitable conclusion at which we must arrive is that, so far from indicating any acquaintance with the fourth gospel, the writings of justin not only do not furnish the slightest evidence of its existence, but offer presumptive testimony against its apostolical origin. tischendorf only devotes a short note to hegesippus,( ) and does not pretend to find in the fragments of his writings, preserved to us by eusebius, or the details of his life which he has recorded, any evidence for our gospels. apologists generally admit that this source, at least, is barren of all testimony for the fourth gospel, but canon westcott cannot renounce so important a witness without an effort, and he therefore boldly says: "when he, (hegesippus) speaks of 'the door of jesus' in his account of the death of st. james, there can be little { } doubt that he alludes to the language of our lord recorded by st. john."( ) the passage to which canon westcott refers, but which he does not quote, is as follows:--"certain, therefore, of the seven heretical parties amongst the people, already described by me in the memoirs, inquired of him, what was the door of jesus; and he declared this ([------]--jesus) to be the saviour. from which some believed that jesus is the christ. but the aforementioned heretics did not believe either a resurrection, or that he shall come to render to every one according to his works. as many as believed, however, did so, through james." the rulers fearing that the people would cause a tumult, from considering jesus to be the messiah [------], entreat james to persuade them concerning jesus, and prevent their being deceived by him; and in order that he may be heard by the multitude, they place james upon a wing of the temple, and cry to him: "o just man, whom we all are bound to believe, inasmuch as the people are led astray after jesus, the crucified, declare plainly to us what is the door of jesus."( ) to find in this a reference to the fourth gospel, requires a good deal of apologetic ingenuity. it is perfectly clear that, as an allusion to john x. , : "i am the door," the question: "what is the door of jesus?" is mere nonsense, and the reply of james totally irrelevant. such a question in reference to the discourse { } in the fourth gospel, moreover, in the mouths of the antagonistic scribes and pharisees, is quite inconceivable, and it is unreasonable to suppose that it has any connection with it. various emendations of the text have been proposed to obviate the difficulty of the question, but none of these have been adopted, and it has now been generally accepted, that [------] is used in an idiomatic sense. the word is very frequently employed in such a manner, or symbolically, in the new testament,( ) and by the fathers. the jews were well acquainted with a similar use of the word in the old testament, in some of the messianic psalms, as for instance: ps. cxviii. , (cxvii. , sept.). ," open to me the gates [------] of righteousness; entering into them, i will give praise to the lord;" , "this is the gate [------] of the lord, the righteous shall enter into it"( ) quoting this passage, clement of alexandria remarks: "but explaining the saying of the prophet, barnabas adds: many gates [------] being open, that which is in righteousness is in christ, in which all those who enter are blessed."( ) grabe explains the passage of hegesippus, by a reference to the frequent allusions in scripture to the two ways: one of light, the other of darkness; the one leading to life, the other to death; as well as the simile of two gates which is coupled with them, as in matt. vil ff. he, therefore, explains the question of the rulers: "what is the door of jesus?" as an inquiry into the judgment of james concerning him: { } whether he was a teacher of truth or a deceiver of the people; whether belief in him was the way and gate of life and salvation, or of death and perdition.( ) he refers as an illustration to the epistle of barnabas, xviii.: "there are two ways of teaching and of power: one of light, the other of darkness. but there is a great difference between the two ways."( ) the epistle, under the symbol of the two ways, classifies the whole of the moral law.( ) in the clementine homilies, xviii. , there is a version of the saying, matt. vii. f, derived from another source, in which "way" is more decidedly even than in our first synoptic made the equivalent of "gate:" "enter ye through the narrow and straitened way [------] through which ye shall enter into life." eusebius himself, who has preserved the fragment, evidently understood it distinctly in the same sense, and he gave its true meaning in another of his works, where he paraphrases the question into an enquiry, as to the opinion which jamas held concerning jesus [------].( ) this view is supported by many learned men, and routh has pointed out that ernesti considered he would have been right in making [------], doctrine, teaching, the equivalent of [------], although he admits that eusebius does not once use it in his history, in connection with christian doctrine.( ) { } he might, however, have instanced this passage, in which it is clearly used in this sense, and so explained by eusebius. in any other sense the question is simple nonsense. there is evidently no intention on the part of the scribes and pharisees here to ridicule, in asking: "what is the door of jesus?" but they desire james to declare plainly to the people, what is the teaching of jesus, and his personal pretension. to suppose that the rulers of the jews set james upon a wing of the temple, in order that they might ask him a question, for the benefit of the multitude, based upon a discourse in the fourth gospel, unknown to the synoptics, and even in relation to which such an inquiry as: "what is the door of jesus?" becomes mere ironical nonsense, surpasses all that we could have imagined even of apologetic zeal. we have already( ) said all that is necessary with regard to hegesippus, in connection with the synoptics, and need not add more here. it is certain that had he said anything interesting about our gospels and, we may say, particularly about the fourth, the fact would have been recorded by eusebius. nor need we add much to our remarks regarding papias of hierapolis.( ) it is perfectly clear that the works of matthew and mark,( ) regarding which he records it is evident that papias did not regard the works by "matthew" and "mark" which he mentions, as of any authority. indeed, all that he reports regarding the latter is merely apologetic, and in deprecation of criticism. { } such important particulars, are not the gospels in our canon, which pass under their names; he does not seem to have known anything of the third synoptic; and there is no reason to suppose that he referred to the fourth gospel or made use of it. he is, therefore, at least, a total blank so far as the johannine gospel and our third synoptic are concerned, but he is more than this, and it may, we think, be concluded that papias was not acquainted with any such gospels which he regarded as apostolic compositions, or authoritative documents. had he said anything regarding the composition or authorship of the fourth gospel, eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this silence of papias is strong presumptive evidence against the johannine gospel.( ) tischendorfs argument in regard to the phrygian bishop is mainly directed to this point, and he maintains that the silence of eusebius does not make papias a witness against the fourth gospel, and does not involve the conclusion that he did not know it, inasmuch as it was not, he affirms, the purpose of eusebius to record the mention or use of the books of the new testament which were not disputed.( ) it might be contended that this reasoning is opposed to the practice and express declaration of eusebius himself, who says: "but in the course of the history i shall, with the successions (from the apostles), carefully intimate what ecclesiastical writers of the various periods made use of { } the antilegomena (or disputed writings), and which of them, and what has been stated by these as well regarding the collected [------] and homologumena (or accepted writings), as regarding those which are not of this kind."( ) it is not worth while, however, to dwell upon this, here. the argument in the case of papias stands upon a broader basis. it is admitted that eusebius engages carefully to record what ecclesiastical writers state regarding the homologumena, and that he actually does so. now papias has himself expressed the high value he attached to tradition, and his eagerness in seeking information from the presbyters. the statements regarding the gospels composed by matthew and mark, quoted by eusebius, are illustrative at once both of the information collected by papias and of that cited by eusebius. how comes it, then, that nothing whatever is said about the fourth gospel, a work so peculiar and of such exceptional importance, said to be composed by the apostle whom jesus loved? is it possible to suppose that when papias collected from the presbyter the facts which he has recorded concerning matthew and mark he would not also have inquired about a gospel by john had he known of it? is it possible that he could have had nothing interesting to tell about a work presenting so many striking and distinctive features? had he collected any information on the subject he would certainly have recorded it, and as certainly eusebius would have quoted what he said,( ) as he did the account of the other two gospels, for he even mentions that papias { } made use of the st epistle of john, and st epistle of peter, two equally accepted writings. the legitimate presumption, therefore, is that, as eusebius did not mention the fact, he did not find anything regarding the fourth gospel in the work of papias, and that papias was not acquainted with it. this presumption is confirmed by the circumstance that when eusebius writes, elsewhere (h. e. iii. ), of the order of the gospels, and the composition of john's gospel, he has no greater authority to give for his account than mere tradition: "they say" [------]. proceeding from this merely negative argument, tischendorf endeavours to show that not only is papias not a witness against the fourth gospel, but that he presents testimony in its favour. the first reason he advances is that eusebius states: "the same (papias) made use of testimonies out of the first epistle of john, and likewise out of that of peter."(l) on the supposed identity of the authorship of the epistle and gospel, tischendorf, as in the case of polycarp, claims this as evidence for the fourth gospel. eusebius, however, does not quote the passages upon which he bases this statement, and knowing his inaccuracy and the hasty and uncritical manner in which he and the fathers generally jump at such conclusions, we must reject this as sufficient evidence that papias really did use the epistle, and that eusebius did not adopt his opinion from a mere superficial analogy of passages.( ) but if it were certain that papias actually quoted from the epistle, it does not in the least follow that he { } ascribed it to the apostle john, and the use of the epistle would scarcely affect the question as to the character and authorship of the fourth gospel the next testimony advanced by tischendorf is indeed of an extraordinary character. there is a latin ms. (vat. alex. ) in the vatican, which tischendorf assigns to the ninth century, in which there is a preface by an unknown hand to the gospel according to john, which commences as follows: "evangelium iohannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab iohannc ad hue in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hicrapolitanus discipulus iohannis carus in exotericis id est in extremis quinque libris retulit." "the gospel of john was published and given to the churches by john whilst he was still in the flesh, as papias, named of hierapolis, an esteemed disciple of john, related in his 'exoterics' that is his last five books." tischendorf says: "there can, therefore, be no more decided declaration made of the testimony of papias for the johannine gospel."( ) he wishes to end the quotation here, and only refers to the continuation, which he is obliged to admit to be untenable, in a note. the passage proceeds: "disscripsit vero evangelium dictante iohanne recte." "he (papias) indeed wrote out the gospel, john duly dictating;" then follows another passage regarding marcion, representing him also as a contemporary of john, which tischendorf likewise confesses to be untrue.( ) now tischendorf admits that the writer desires it to be understood that he derived the information that papias wrote the fourth gospel at the dictation of john likewise from the work of papias, and as it is perfectly impossible, by his own admissions, that papias, who was not a { } contemporary of the apostle, could have stated this, the whole passage is clearly fabulous and written by a person who never saw the book at all. this extraordinary piece of evidence is so obviously absurd that it is passed over in silence by other critics, even of the strongest apologetic tendency, and it stands here a pitiable instance of the arguments to which destitute criticism can be reduced. in order to do full justice to the last of the arguments of tischendorf, we shall give it in his own words: "before we separate from papias, we have still to consider one testimony for the gospel of john which irenæus, v. , § , quotes out of the very mouth of the presbyters, those high authorities of papias: 'and therefore, say they, the lord declared: in my father's house are many mansions( ) (john xiv. ). as the presbyters set this declaration in connection with the blessedness of the righteous in the city of god, in paradise, in heaven, according as they bear thirty, sixty, or one hundred-fold fruit, nothing is more probable than that irenæus takes this whole declaration of the presbyters, which he gives, §§ - , like the preceding description of the thousand years' reign, from the work of papias. but whether this be its origin or not, the authority of the presbyters is in any case higher than that of papias," &c.( ) now in the quotation from irenseus given in this { } passage, tischendorf renders the oblique construction of the text by inserting "say they," referring to the presbyters of papias, and, as he does not give the original, he should at least have indicated that these words are supplementary. we shall endeavour as briefly as possible to state the facts of the case. irenæus, with many quotations from scripture, is arguing that our bodies are preserved, and that the saints who have suffered so much in the flesh shall in that flesh receive the fruits of their labours. in v. , § , he refers to the saying given in matt. xix. (luke xviii. , ) that whosoever has left lands, &c., because of christ shall receive a hundred-fold in this world, and in the next, eternal life; and then, enlarging on the abundance of the blessings in the millennial kingdom, he affirms that creation will be renovated, and the earth acquire wonderful fertility, and he adds: § , "as the presbyters who saw john the disciple of the lord, remember that they heard from him, how the lord taught concerning those times and said:" &c. ("quemadmodum pres-byteri meminerunt, qui joannem discipulum domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat dominus, et dicebat," &c.), and then he quotes the passage: "the days will come in which vines will grow each having ten thousand branches," &c.; and "in like manner that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears," &c. with regard to these he says, at the beginning of the next paragraph, v. , § , "these things are testified in writing by papias, a hearer of john and associate of polycarp, an ancient { } man, in the fourth of his books: for there were five books composed by him.( ) and he added saying: 'but these things are credible to believers. and judas the traitor not believing, and asking how shall such growths be effected by the lord, the lord said: they who shall come to them shall see.' prophesying of these times, therefore, isaiah says: 'the wolf also shall feed with the lamb,' &c. &c. (quoting isaiah xi. -- ), and again he says, recapitulating: 'wolves and lambs shall then feed together,'" &c. (quoting isaiah lxv. ), and so on, continuing his argument. it is clear that irenæus introduces the quotation from papias, and ending his reference at: "they who shall come to them shall see," he continues, with a quotation from isaiah, his own train of reasoning. we give this passage to show the manner in which irenæus proceeds. he then continues with the same subject, quoting (v. , ) isaiah, ezekiel, jeremiah, daniel, the apocalypse, and sayings found in the new testament bearing upon the millennium. in c. he argues that the prophecies he quotes of isaiah, jeremiah, and the apocalypse must not be allegorized away, but that they literally describe the blessings to be enjoyed, after the coming of antichrist and the resurrection, in the new jerusalem on earth, and he quotes isaiah vi. , lx. , , and a long passage from baruch iv. , v. (which he ascribes to jeremiah), isaiah xlix. , gala-tians iv. , rev. xxi. , xx. -- , xxi. -- , all descriptive, as he maintains, of the millennial kingdom prepared for the saints; and then in v. , the last chapter of his work on heresies, as if resuming his eusebius has preserved the greek of this passage (h. e., iii. ), and goes on to contradict the statement of irenæus that papias was a hearer and contemporary of the apostles. eusebius states that papias in his prefaco by no means asserts that he was. { } previous argument, he proceeds:( ) § . "and that these things shall ever remain without end isaiah says: 'for like as the new heaven and the new earth which i make remain before me, saith the lord, so shall your seed and your name continue,'( ) and as the presbyters say, then those who have been deemed worthy of living in heaven shall go thither, and others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the glory of the city; for everywhere the saviour shall be seen as those who see him shall be worthy. § . but that there is this distinction of dwelling [------] of those bearing fruit the hundred fold, and of the (bearers) of the sixty fold, and of the (bearers of) the thirty fold: of whom some indeed shall be taken up into the heavens, some shall live in paradise, and some shall inhabit the city, and that for this reason [------] propter hoc) the lord declared: in the... (plural) of my father are many mansions [------].( ) for all things are of god, who prepares for all the fitting habitation, as his word says, that distribution is made to all by the father according { } as each is or shall be worthy. and this is the couch upon which they recline who are invited to banquet at the wedding. the presbyters disciples of the apostles state that this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved, and that by such steps they advance,"( ) &c. &c. now it is impossible for any one who attentively considers the whole of this passage, and who makes himself acquainted with the manner in which irenæus conducts his argument, and interweaves it with quotations, to assert that the phrase we are considering must have been taken from a book referred to three chapters earlier, and was not introduced by irenæus from some other source. in the passage from the commencement of the second paragraph irenæus enlarges upon, and illustrates, what "the presbyters say" regarding the blessedness of the saints, by quoting the view held as to the distinction between those bearing fruit thirty fold, sixty fold, and one hundred fold,( ) and the interpretation given of the { } saying regarding "many mansions," but the source of his quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of his own day. that this is probably the case is shown by the continuation: "and this is the couch upon which they recline who are invited to banquet at the wedding"--an allusion to the marriage supper upon which irenæus had previously enlarged;( ) immediately after which phrase, introduced by irenæus himself, he says: "the presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, state that this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved," &c. now, if the preceding passages had been a mere quotation from the presbyters of papias, such a remark would have been out of place and useless, but being the exposition of the prevailing views, irenæus confirms it and prepares to wind up the whole subject by the general statement that the presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved, and that by such steps they advance and ascend through the spirit to the son, and through the son to the father, &c., and a few sentences after he closes his work. in no case, however, can it be legitimately affirmed that the citation of "the presbyters," and the "presbyters, disciples of the apostles," is a reference to the work of papias. when quoting "the presbyters who saw john the disciple of the lord," three chapters before, irenæus distinctly states that papias testifies what he quotes in writing in the fourth of his books, but there is nothing whatever to indicate that "the presbyters," and "the presbyters, disciples of the apostles," subsequently referred to, after a complete change of context, have anything to do with papias. the references to presbyters in this { } work of irenæus are very numerous, and when we remember the importance which the bishop of lyons attached to "that tradition which comes from the apostles, which is preserved in the churches by a succession of presbyters,"( ) the reference before us assumes a very different complexion. in one place, irenæus quotes "the divine presbyter" [------], "the god-loving presbyter" [------],( ) who wrote verses against the heretic marcus. elsewhere he supports his extraordinary statement that the public career of jesus, instead of being limited to a single year, extended over a period of twenty years, and that he was nearly fifty when he suffered,( ) by the appeal: "as the gospel and all the presbyters testify, who in asia met with john the disciple of the lord (stating) that these things were transmitted to them by john. for he continued among them till the times of trajan."( ) that these presbyters are not quoted from the work of papias may be inferred from the fact that eusebius, who had his work, quotes the passage from irenseus without allusion to papias, and as he adduces two witnesses only, irenæus and clement of alexandria, to prove the assertion regarding john, he would certainly have referred to the earlier authority, had the work of papias contained the statement, as he does for the stories regarding the { } daughters of the apostle philip; the miracle in favour of justus, and other matters.( ) we need not refer to clement, nor to polycarp, who had been "taught by apostles," and the latter of whom irenæus knew in his youth.( ) irenæus in one place also gives a long account of the teaching of some one upon the sins of david and other men of old, which he introduces: "as i have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who learnt from them."( ) &c. further on, speaking evidently of a different person, he says: "in this manner also a presbyter disciple of the apostles, reasoned regarding the two testaments:"( ) and quotes fully. in another place irenæus, after quoting gen. ii. , "and god planted a paradise eastward in eden," &c., states: "wherefore the presbyters who are disciples of the apostles [------], say that those who were translated had been translated thither," there to remain till the consummation of all things awaiting immortality, and irenæus explains that it was into this paradise that paul was caught up ( cor. xii. ).( ) it seems highly probable that these "presbyters the disciples of the apostles" who are quoted on paradise, are the same "presbyters the disciples of the apostles" referred to on the same subject (v. , §§ , ) whom we { } are discussing, but there is nothing whatever to connect them with papias. he also speaks of the scptuagint translation of the bible as the version of the "presbyters,"( ) and on several occasions he calls luke "the follower and disciple of the apostles" (sectator et discipulus apostolorum)( ), and characterizes mark as "the interpreter and follower of peter" (interpres et sectator petri)( ), and refers to both as having learnt from the words of the apostles.( ) here is, therefore, a wide choice of presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of irenæus may with equal right be ascribed,( ) so that it is unreasonable to claim it as an allusion to the work of papias.( ) in fact, dr. tischendorf and canon westcott( ) stand almost alone in in the new testament the term presbyter is even used in reference to patriarchs and prophets. heb. xi. ; cf. matt xv. ; mark vii. , . with regard to the presbyters quoted by irenæus generally. cf. routh, reliq. sacrse, i. p. ff. { } advancing this passage as evidence that either papias or his presbyters( ) were acquainted with the fourth gospel, and this renders the statement which is made by them without any discussion all the more indefensible. scarcely a single writer, however apologetic, seriously cites it amongst the external testimonies for the early existence of the gospel, and the few who do refer to the passage merely mention, in order to abandon, it.( ) so far as the question as to whether the fourth gospel was mentioned in the work of papias is concerned, the passage has practically never entered into the controversy at all, the great mass of critics having recognized that it is of no evidential value whatever, and, by common consent, tacitly excluded it.( ) it is { } admitted that the bishop of hierapolis cannot be shown to have known the fourth gospel, and the majority affirm that he actually was not acquainted with it. being, therefore, so completely detached from papias, it is obvious that the passage does not in any way assist the fourth gospel, but becomes assignable to vague tradition, and subject to the cumulative force of objections, which prohibit an early date being ascribed to so indefinite a reference. before passing on there is one other point to mention: andrew of cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the apocalypse, mentions that papias maintained "the credibility" [------] of that book, or in other words, its apostolic origin.( ) his strong millenarian opinions would naturally make such a composition stand high in his esteem, if indeed it did not materially contribute to the formation of his views, which is still more probable. apologists admit the genuineness of this statement, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of papias with the apocalypse.( ) canon westcott, for instance, says: "he maintained, moreover, 'the divine inspiration' of the apocalypse, and commented, at least, upon part of it."( ) now, he must, therefore, have recognized the book as the work of the apostle john, and we shall, hereafter, show that it is impossible that the author of the apocalypse is the author of the gospel; therefore, in this way also, papias { } is a witness against the apostolic origin of the fourth gospel. we must now turn to the clementine homilies, although, as we have shown,( ) the uncertainty as to the date of this spurious work, and the late period which must undoubtedly he assigned to its composition, render its evidence of very little value for the canonical gospels. the passages pointed out in the homilies as indicating acquaintance with the fourth gospel were long advanced with hesitation, and were generally felt to be inconclusive, but on the discovery of the concluding portion of the work and its publication by dressel in , it was found to contain a passage which apologists now claim as decisive evidence of the use of the gospel, and which even succeeded in converting some independent critics.( ) tischendorf( ) and canon westcott,( ) in the few lines devoted to the clementines, do not refer to the earlier proof passages, but rely entirely upon that last discovered. with a view, however, to making the whole of the evidence clear, we shall give all of the supposed allusions to the fourth gospel, confronting them with the text. the first is as follows:-- [------] { } [------] the first point which is apparent here is that there is a total difference both in the language and real meaning of these two passages. the homily uses the word [------] instead of the [------] of the gospel, and speaks of the gate of life, instead of the door of the sheepfold. we have already( ) discussed the passage in the pastor of hernias in which similar reference is made to the gate [------] into the kingdom of god, and need not here repeat our argument. in matt. vii. , , we have the direct description of the gate [------] which leads to life [------], and we have elsewhere quoted the messianic psalm cxviii. , : "this is the gate of the lord [------],( ) the righteous shall enter into it." in another place, the author of the homilies, referring to a passage parallel to, but differing from, matt. xxiii. , which we have elsewhere considered,( ) and which is derived from a gospel different from ours, says: "hear _them_ (scribes and pharisees who sit upon moses' seat), he said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom which is knowledge, which alone is able to open the gate of life [------], through which alone is the entrance to eternal life."( ) now in the very next chapter to that in which the saying which we are discussing occurs, a very few lines after it indeed, we have the following passage: "indeed he said further: 'i am he { } concerning whom moses prophesied, saying: 'a prophet shall the lord our god raise up to you from among your brethren as also (he raised) me; hear ye him regarding all things, but whosoever will not hear that prophet he shall die.'"( ) there is no such saying in the canonical gospels or other books of the new testament attributed to jesus, but a quotation from deuteronomy xviii. f., materially different from this, occurs twice in the acts of the apostles, once being put into the mouth of peter applied to jesus,( ) and the second time also applied to him, being quoted by stephen.( ) it is quite clear that the writer is quoting from uncanonical sources, and here is another express declaration regarding himself: "i am he," &c., which is quite in the spirit of the preceding passage which we are discussing, and probably derived from the same source. in another place we find the following argument: "but the way is the manner of life, as also moses says: 'behold i have set before thy face the way of life, and the way of death'( ) and in agreement the teacher said: 'enter ye through the narrow and straitened way through which ye shall enter into life,' and in another place a certain person inquiring: 'what shall i do to inherit eternal life?' he intimated the commandments of the law."( ) it has to be observed that the homilies teach the doctrine { } that the spirit in jesus christ had already appeared in adam, and by a species of transmigration passed through moses and the patriarchs and prophets: "who from the beginning of the world, changing names and forms, passes through time [------] until, attaining his own seasons, being on account of his labours anointed by the mercy of god, he shall have rest for ever."( ) just in the same way, therefore, as the homilies represent jesus as quoting a prophecy of moses, and altering it to a personal declaration: "i am the prophet," &c., so here again they make him adopt this saying of moses and, "being the true prophet," declare: "i am the gate or the way of life,"--inculcating the same commandments of the law which the gospel of the homilies represents jesus as coming to confirm and not to abolish. the whole system of doctrine of the clementines, as we shall presently see, indicated here even by the definition of "the true prophet," is so fundamentally opposed to that of the fourth gospel that there is no reasonable ground for supposing that the author made use of it, and this brief saying, varying as it does in language and sense from the parallel in that work, cannot prove acquaintance with it. there is good reason to believe that the author of the fourth gospel, who most undeniably derived materials from earlier evangelical works, may have drawn from a source likewise used by the gospel according to the hebrews, and thence many analogies might well be presented with quotations from that or kindred gospels.( ) we find, further, this community of source in the fact, { } that in the fourth gospel, without actual quotation, there is a reference to moses, and, no doubt, to the very passage (deut. xviii. ), which the gospel of the clementines puts into the mouth of jesus, john v. : "for had ye believed moses ye would believe me, for he wrote of me." whilst the ebionite gospel gave prominence to this view of the case, the dogmatic system of the logos gospel did not permit of more than mere reference to it. the next passage pointed out as derived from the johannine gospel occurs in the same chapter: "my sheep hear my voice." [------] there was no more common representation amongst the jews of the relation between god and his people than that of a shepherd and his sheep,( ) nor any more current expression than: hearing his voice. this brief anonymous saying was in all probability derived from the same source as the preceding,( ) which cannot be identified with the fourth gospel. tradition, and the acknowledged existence of other written records of the teaching of jesus oppose any exclusive claim to this fragmentary saying. we have already discussed the third passage regarding the new birth in connection with justin,( ) and may therefore pass on to the last and most important passage, to which we have referred as contained in the concluding portion of the homilies first published by dressel in { } . we subjoin it in contrast with the parallel in the fourth gospel [------] it is necessary that we should consider the context of this passage in the homily, the characteristics of which are markedly opposed to the theory that it was derived from the fourth gospel we must mention that, in the clementines, the apostle peter is represented as maintaining that the scriptures are not all true, but are mixed up with what is false, and that on this account, and in order to inculcate the necessity of distinguishing between the true and the false, jesus taught his disciples, "be ye approved money changers,"( ) an injunction not found in our gospels. one of the points which peter denies is the fall of adam, a doctrine which, as neander remarked, "he must combat as blasphemy."( ) at the part we are { } considering he is discussing with simon,--under whose detested personality, as we have elsewhere shown, the apostle paul is really attacked,--and refuting the charges he brings forward regarding the origin and continuance of evil. the apostle peter in the course of the discussion asserts that evil is the same as pain and death, but that evil does not exist eternally and, indeed, does not really exist at all, for pain and death are only accidents without permanent force--pain is merely the disturbance of harmony, and death nothing but the separation of soul from body.( ) the passions also must be classed amongst the things which are accidental, and are not always to exist; but these, although capable of abuse, are in reality beneficial to the soul when properly restrained, and carry out the will of god. the man who gives them unbridled course ensures his own punishment.( ) simon inquires why men die prematurely and periodical diseases come, and also visitations of demons and of madness and other afflictions; in reply to which peter explains that parents by following their own pleasure in all things and neglecting proper sanitary considerations, produce a multitude of evils for their children, and this either through { } carelessness or ignorance.( ) and then follows the passage we are discussing: "wherefore also our teacher," &c., and at the end of the quotation, he continues: "and truly such sufferings ensue in consequence of ignorance," and giving an instance,( ) he proceeds: "now the sufferings which you before mentioned are the consequence of ignorance, and certainly not of an evil act, which has been committed,"( ) &c. now it is quite apparent that the peculiar variation from the parallel in the fourth gospel in the latter part of the quotation is not accidental, but is the point upon which the whole propriety of the quotation depends. in the gospel of the clementines the man is not blind from his birth, "that the works of god might be made manifest in him,"--a doctrine which would be revolting to the author of the homilies,--but the calamity has befallen him in consequence of some error of ignorance on the part of his parents which brings its punishment; but "the power of god" is made manifest in healing the sins of ignorance. the reply of jesus is a professed quotation, and it varies very substantially from the parallel in the gospel, presenting evidently a distinctly different version of the episode. the substitution of [------] for [------] in the opening is also significant, more especially as justin likewise in his general remark, which we have discussed, uses the same word. assuming the passage in the fourth gospel to be the account of a historical episode, as apologists, of course, maintain, the case stands thus:--the author of the homilies introduces a narrative of a historical { } incident in the life of jesus, which may have been, and probably was, reported in many early gospels in language which, though analogous to, is at the same time decidedly different, in the part which is a professed quotation, from that of the fourth gospel, and presents another and natural comment upon the central event. the reference to the historical incident is, of course, no evidence whatever of dependence on the fourth gospel, which, although it may be the only accidentally surviving work which contains the narrative, had no prescriptive and exclusive property in it, and so far from the partial agreement in the narrative proving the use of the fourth gospel, the only remarkable point is, that all narratives of the same event and reports of words actually spoken do not more perfectly agree, while, on the other hand, the very decided variation in the reply of jesus, according to the homily, from that given in the fourth gospel leads to the distinct presumption that it is not the source of the quotation. it is perfectly unreasonable to assert that such a reference, without the slightest indication of the source from which the author derived his information, must be dependent on one particular work, more especially when the part which is given as distinct quotation substantially differs from the record in that work. we have already illustrated this on several occasions, and may once more offer an instance. if the first synoptic had unfortunately perished, like so many other gospels of the early church, and in the clementines we met with the quotation: "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" [------], apologists would certainly assert, according to the principle upon which they act in { } the present case, that this quotation was clear evidence of the use of luke vi. : "blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of god." [------], more especially as a few codices actually insert [------], the slight variations being merely ascribed to free quotation from memory. in point of fact, however, the third synoptic might not at the time have been in existence, and the quotation might have been derived, as it is, from matt. v. . nothing is more certain and undeniable than the fact that the author of the fourth gospel made use of materials derived from oral tradition and earlier records for its composition.( ) it is equally undeniable that other gospels had access to the same materials, and made use of them; and a comparison of our three synoptics renders very evident the community of materials, including the use of the one by the other, as well as the diversity of literary handling to which those materials were subjected. it is impossible with reason to deny that the gospel according to the hebrews, for instance, as well as other earlier evangelical works now lost, may have drawn from the same sources as the fourth gospel, and that narratives derived from the one may, therefore, present analogies with the other whilst still perfectly independent of it.( ) whatever private opinion, therefore, any one may form as to the source of the anonymous quotations which we have been considering, it is evident that they are totally insufficient to prove that the author of { } the clementine homilies must have made use of the fourth gospel, and consequently they do not establish even the contemporary existence of that work. if such quotations, moreover, could be traced with fifty times greater probability to the fourth gospel, it is obvious that they could do nothing towards establishing its historical character and apostolic origin. leaving, however, the few and feeble analogies by which apologists vainly seek to establish the existence of the fourth gospel and its use by the author of the pseudo-clementine homilies, and considering the question for a moment from a wider point of view, the results already attained are more than confirmed. the doctrines held and strongly enunciated in the clementines seem to us to exclude the supposition that the author can have made use of a work so fundamentally at variance with all his views as the fourth gospel, and it is certain that, holding those opinions, he could hardly have regarded such a gospel as an apostolic and authoritative document. space will not permit our entering adequately into this argument, and we must refer our readers to works more immediately devoted to the examination of the homilies for a close analysis of their dogmatic teaching,( ) but we may in the briefest manner point out some of their more prominent doctrines in contrast with those of the johannine gospel. { } one of the leading and most characteristic ideas of the clementine homilies is the essential identity of judaism and christianity. christ revealed nothing new with regard to god, but promulgated the very same truth concerning him as adam, moses, and the patriarchs, and in fact the right belief is that moses and jesus were essentially one and the same.( ) indeed, it may be said that the teaching of the homilies is more jewish than christian.( ) in the preliminary epistle of the apostle peter to the apostle james, when sending the book, peter entreats that james will not give it to any of the gentiles,( ) and james says: "necessarily and rightly our peter reminded us to take precautions for the security of the truth, that we should not communicate the books of his preachings, sent to us, indiscriminately to all, but to him who is good and discreet and chosen to teach, and who is _circumcised_,( ) being faithful."( ) &c. clement also is represented as describing his conversion to christianity in the following terms: "for this cause i fled for refuge to the holy god and law of the jews, with faith in the certain conclusion that, by the righteous judgment of god, both the law is prescribed, and the soul beyond doubt everywhere receives { } the desert of its actions."( ) peter recommends the inhabitants of tyre to follow what are really jewish rites, and to hear "as the god-fearing jews have heard "( ) the jew has the same truth as the christian: "for as there is one teaching by both (moses and jesus), god accepts him who believes either of these."( ) the law was in fact given by adam as a true prophet knowing all things, and it is called "eternal," and neither to be abrogated by enemies nor falsified by the impious.( ) the author, therefore, protests against the idea that christianity is any new thing, and insists that jesus came to confirm, not abrogate, the mosaic law.( ) on the other hand the author of the fourth gospel represents christianity in strong contrast and antagonism to judaism.( ) in his antithetical system, the religion of jesus is opposed to judaism as well as all other belief, as light to darkness and life to death.( ) the law which moses gave is treated as merely national, and neither of { } general application nor intended to be permanent, being only addressed to the jews. it is perpetually referred to as the "law of the jews," "your law,"--and the jewish festivals as feasts of the jews, and jesus neither held the one in any consideration nor did he scruple to shew his indifference to the other.( ) the very name of "the jews" indeed is used as an equivalent for the enemies of christ.( ) the religion of jesus is not only absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the father which the jews did not previously possess.( ) the inferiority of mosaism is everywhere represented: "and out of his fulness all we received, and grace for grace. because the law was given through moses; _grace and truth_ came through jesus christ."( ) "verily verily i say unto you: moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven."( ) the fundamental difference of christianity from judaism will further appear as we proceed. the most essential principle of the clementines, again, is monotheism,--the absolute oneness of god,--which the author vehemently maintains as well against the ascription of divinity to christ as against heathen polytheism and the gnostic theory of the demiurge as distinguished from the supreme god.( ) christ not only is not god, { } but he never asserted himself to be so.( ) he wholly ignores the doctrine of the logos, and his speculation is confined to the [------], the wisdom of proverbs viii., &c., and is, as we shall see, at the same time a less developed and very different doctrine from that of the fourth gospel.( ) the idea of a hypostatic trinity seems to be quite unknown to him, and would have been utterly abhorrent to his mind as sheer polytheism. on the other hand, the fourth gospel proclaims the doctrine of a hypostatic trinity in a more advanced form than any other writing of the new testament. it is, indeed, the fundamental principle of the work,( ) as the doctrine of the logos is its most characteristic feature. in the beginning the "word not only was with god, but "the word was god" [------].( ) he is the "only begotten god" [------],( ) equivalent to the "second god" [------] of philo, and, throughout, his absolutely divine nature is asserted both by the evangelist, and in express terms in the discourses of jesus.( ) nothing could be more opposed to the principles of the clementines. { } according to the homilies, the same spirit, the [------], appeared in adam, enoch, noah, abraham, isaac, jacob, moses, and finally in jesus, who are the only "true prophets" and are called the seven pillars [------] of the world.( ) these seven( ) persons, therefore, are identical, the same true prophet and spirit" who from the beginning of the world, changing names and forms, passes through time,"( ) and these men were thus essentially the same as jesus.( ) as neander rightly observes, the author of the homilies "saw in jesus a new appearance of that adam whom he had ever venerated as the source of all the true and divine in man."( ) we need not point out how different these views are from the logos doctrine of the fourth gospel.( ) in other points there is an equally wide gulf between the clementines and the fourth gospel. according to the author of the homilies, the chief dogma of it is very uncertain by what means the author of the homilies considered this periodical reappearance to be effected, whether by a kind of transmigration or otherwise. critics consider it very doubtful whether he admitted the supernatural birth of jesus (though some hold it to be probable), but at any rate he does not explain the matter: uhlhorn, die homilien, p. f.; neander, k. g., ii. p. , anm. ; credner thought that he did not admit it, . c. p. ; schliemann, whilst thinking that he did admit it, considers that in that case he equally attributed a supernatural birth to the other seven prophets: die clementinen, p. ff. { } true religion is monotheism. belief in christ, in the specific johannine sense, is nowhere inculcated, and where belief is spoken of, it is merely belief in god. no dogmatic importance whatever is attached to faith in christ or to his sufferings, death, and resurrection, and of the doctrines of atonement and redemption there is nothing in the homilies,( )--everyone must make his own reconciliation with god, and bear the punishment of his own sins.( ) on the other hand, the representation of jesus as the lamb of god taking away the sins of the world,( ) is the very basis of the fourth gospel. the passages are innumerable in which belief in jesus is insisted upon as essential. "he that believeth in the son hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god abideth on him "( )...."for if ye believe not that i am he, ye shall die in your sins."( ) in fact, the "whole of christianity according to the author of the fourth gospel is concentrated in the possession of faith in christ.( ) belief in god alone is never held to be sufficient; belief in christ is necessary for salvation; he died for the sins of the world, and is the object of faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification before god can be secured.( ) the same discrepancy is apparent in smaller details. in the clementines the apostle peter { } is the principal actor, and is represented as the chief amongst the apostles. in the epistle of clement to james, which precedes the homilies, peter is described in the following terms: "simon, who, on account of his true faith and of the principles of his doctrine, which were most sure, was appointed to be the foundation of the church, and for this reason his name was by the unerring voice of jesus himself changed to peter; the first-fruit of our lord; the first of the apostles to whom first the father revealed the son; whom the christ deservedly pronounced blessed; the called and chosen and companion and fellow-traveller (of jesus); the admirable and approved disciple, who as fittest of all was commanded to enlighten the west, the darker part of the world, and was enabled to guide it aright," &c.( ) he is here represented as the apostle to the heathen, the hated apostle paul being robbed of that honourable title, and he is, in the spirit of this introduction, made to play, throughout, the first part amongst the apostles.( ) in the fourth gospel, however, he is assigned a place quite secondary to john,( ) who is the disciple whom jesus loved and who leans on his bosom.( ) we shall only mention one "other point the homilist, when attacking the apostle paul, under the { } name of simon the magician, for his boast that he had not been taught by man, but by a revelation of jesus christ,( ) whom he had only seen in a vision, inquires: why, then, did the teacher remain and discourse a whole year to us who were awake, if you became his apostle after a single hour of instruction?( ) as neander aptly remarks: "but if the author had known from the johannine gospel that the teaching of christ had continued for _several years_, he would certainly have had particularly good reason instead of one year to set _several_."( ) it is obvious that an author with so vehement an animosity against paul would assuredly have strengthened his argument, by adopting the more favourable statement of the fourth gospel as to the duration of the ministry of jesus, had he been acquainted with that work. our attention must now be turned to the anonymous composition, known as the "epistle to diognetus," general particulars regarding which we have elsewhere given.( ) this epistle, it is admitted, does not contain any quotation from any evangelical work, but on the strength of some supposed references it is claimed by apologists as evidence for the existence of the fourth gospel. tischendorf, who only devotes a dozen lines to this work, states his case as follows: "although this short apologetic epistle contains no precise quotation from any gospel, yet it contains repeated references to evangelical, and particularly to johannine, passages. for when the author writes, ch. : 'christians dwell in the world, but they are not of the world;' and in { } ch. : 'for god has loved men, for whose sakes he made the world.... to whom he sent his only begotten son,' the reference to john xvii. ('but they are in the world'); ('the world hateth them, for they are not of the world'); ('they are not of the world as i am not of the world'); and to john iii. ('god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son'), is hardly to be mistaken."( ) dr. westcott still more emphatically claims the epistle as evidence for the fourth gospel, and we shall, in order impartially to consider the question, likewise quote his remarks in full upon the point, but as he introduces his own paraphrase of the context in a manner which does not properly convey its true nature to a reader who has not the epistle before him, we shall take the liberty of putting the actual quotations in italics, and the rest must be taken as purely the language of canon westcott. we shall hereafter show also the exact separation which exists between phrases which are here, with the mere indication of some omission, brought together to form the supposed references to the fourth gospel. canon westcott says: "in one respect the two parts of the book are united,( ) inasmuch as they both exhibit a combination of the teaching of st. paul and st. john. the love of god, it is said in the letter to diognetus, is the source of love in the christian, who must needs 'love god who thus first loved him' [------], and find an expression for this love by loving his neighbour, { } whereby he will be '_an imitator of god!_' for god loved men, for whose sakes he made the world, to whom he subjected all things that are in the earth.... unto whom [------] he sent his only begotten son, to whom he promised the kingdom in heaven [------], _and will give it to those who love him._' god's will is mercy; '_he sent his son as wishing to save [------].... and not to condemn'_ and as witnesses of this, '_christians dwell in the world, though they are not of the world!_( ) at the close of the paragraph he proceeds: "the presence of the teaching of st. john is here placed beyond all doubt. there are, however, no direct references to the gospels throughout the letter, nor indeed any allusions to our lord's discourses."( ) it is clear that as there is no direct reference to any gospel in the epistle to diognetus, even if it were ascertained to be a composition dating from the middle of the second century, which it is not, and even if the indirect allusions were ten times more probable than they are, this anonymous work could do nothing towards establishing the apostolic origin and historical character { } of the fourth gospel. written, however, as we believe it to have been, at a much later period, it scarcely requires any consideration here. we shall, however, for those who may be interested in more minutely discussing the point, at once proceed to examine whether the composition even indicates the existence of the gospel, and for this purpose we shall take each of the passages in question and place them with their context before the reader; and we only regret that the examination of a document which, neither from its date nor evidence can be of any real weight, should detain us so long. the first passage is: "christians dwell in the world but are not of the world" [------]. dr. westcott, who reverses the order of all the passages indicated, introduces this sentence (which occurs in chapter vi.) as the consequence of a passage following it in chapter vii. by the words "and as witnesses of this: christians," &c.... the first parallel which is pointed out in the gospel reads, john xvii. : "and i am no more in the world, and these are in the world [------], and i come to thee, holy father keep them,"&c. now it must be evident that in mere direct point of language and sense there is no parallel here at all. in the gospel, the disciples are referred to as being left behind in the world by jesus who goes to the father, whilst, in the epistle, the object is the antithesis that while christians _dwell_ in the world they are not of the world. in the second parallel, which is supposed to complete the analogy, the gospel reads: v. , "i have given them thy word: and the world hated them because they are not of the world, [------] even as i am not of the world." here, again, the parallel words are merely introduced as a reason why the world hated them, and not antithetically, and from this very connection we shall see that the resemblance between the epistle and the gospel is merely superficial. in order to form a correct judgment regarding the nature of the passage in the epistle, we must carefully examine the context. in chapter v. the author is speaking of the manners of christians, and he says that they are not distinguished from others either { } by country or language or by their customs, for they have neither cities nor speech of their own, nor do they lead a singular life. they dwell in their native countries, but only as sojourners [------], and the writer proceeds by a long sequence of antithetical sentences to depict their habits. "every foreign land is as their native country, yet the land of their birth is a foreign land" [------], and so on. now this epistle is in great part a mere plagiarism of the pauline and other canonical epistles, whilst professing to describe the actual life of christians, and the fifth and sixth chapters, particularly, are based upon the epistles of paul and notably the nd epistle to the corinthians, from which even the antithetical style is derived. we may give a specimen of this in referring to the context of the passage before us, and it is important that we should do so. after a few sentences like the above the fifth chapter continues: "they are in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh. they continue on earth, but are citizens of heaven "[------].( ) it is very evident here, and throughout the epistle, that the epistles of paul chiefly, together with the other canonical epistles, are the sources of the writer's inspiration. the next chapter (vi) begins and proceeds as follows: "to say all in a word: what the soul is in the body, that christians are in the world. the soul is dispersed throughout all the members of the body, and christians throughout all the cities of the world. the soul dwells in the body but is not of the body, and christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. [------]. the invisible soul is kept in the visible body, and christians are known, indeed, to be in the world, but their worship of god remains invisible. the flesh hates the soul and wages war against it, although in no way wronged by it, because it is restrained from indulgence in sensual pleasures, and the world hates christians, { } although in no way wronged by them, because they are opposed to sensual pleasures [------]. the soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the members, and christians love those who hate them "[------]. and so on with three or four similar sentences, one of which, at least, is taken from the epistle to the corinthians,( ) to the end of the chapter. now the passages pointed out as references to the fourth gospel, it will be remembered, distinctly differ from the parallels in the gospel, and it seems to us clear that they arise naturally out of the antithetical manner which the writer adopts from the epistles of paul, and are based upon passages in those epistles closely allied to them in sense and also in language. the simile in connection with which the words occur is commenced at the beginning of the preceding chapter, where christians are represented as living as strangers even in their native land, and the very essence of the passage in dispute is given in the two sentences: "they are in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh" [------], which is based upon cor. x. , "for we walk in the flesh, but do not war( ) according to the flesh" [------], and similar passages abound; as for instance, rom. viii. ... "in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit; . but ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit [------]: ... so then, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, that we should live after the flesh" [------] &c., &c. (cf. , .). and the second: "they continue on earth but are citizens of heaven" [------], which recall philip, iii. : "for our country (our citizenship) is in heaven" [------].( ) the sense of the passage is everywhere found, and nothing is more natural than { } the use of the words arising both out of the previous reference to the position of christians as mere sojourners in the world, and as the antithesis to the preceding part of the sentence: "the soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body," and: "christians dwell in the world but are not of the world." cf. cor. ii. ; vii. ; cor. l . gal. iv. , v. ff. , , vi. . rom. viii. ff. ephes. ii. , , ff. coloss. iii. ff: titus ii. . james i. . there is one point, however, which we think shows that the words were not derived from the fourth gospel. the parallel with the epistle can only be made by taking a few words out of xvii. and adding to them a few words in verse , where they stand in the following connection "and the world hated them, because they are not of the world" [------]. in the epistle, in a passage quoted above, we have: "the flesh hates the soul, and wages war against it, although unjustly, because it is restrained from indulgence in sensual pleasures, and the world hates christians, _although in no way wronged by them, because they are opposed to sensual pleasures_." [------].now nothing could more clearly show that these analogies are mere accidental coincidence, and not derived from the fourth gospel, than this passage. if the writer had really had the passage in the gospel in his mind, it is impossible that he could in this manner have completely broken it up and changed its whole context and language. the phrase: "they are not of the world" would have been introduced here as the reason for the hatred, instead of being used with quite different context elsewhere in the passage. in fact, in the only place in which the words would have presented a true parallel with the gospel, they are not used. not the slightest reference is made throughout the epistle to diognetus to any of the discourses of jesus. on the other hand, we have seen that the whole of the passage in the epistle in which these sentences occur is based both in matter, and in its peculiar antithetical form, upon the epistles of paul, and in these and other canonical epistles again, we find the source of the sentence just quoted: gal. iv. . "but as then, he that was born after the flesh { } persecuted him (that was born) after the spirit, even so it is now."( ) v. . "walk by the spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. . for the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary the one to the other, that ye may not do the things that ye would."( ) there are innumerable passages in the pauline epistles to the same effect. we pass on now to the next passage in the order of the epistle. it is not mentioned at all by tischendorf: dr. west-cott introduces it with the words: "god's will is mercy," by which we presume that he means to paraphrase the context "he sent his son as wishing to save [------].... and not to condemn."( ) this sentence, however, which is given as quotation without any explanation, is purely a composition by canon westcott himself out of different materials which he finds in the epistle, and is not a quotation at all. the actual passage in the epistle, with its immediate context, is as follows: "this (messenger--the truth, the holy word) he sent to them; now, was it, as one of men might reason, for tyranny and to cause fear and consternation? not so, but in clemency and gentleness, as a king sending his son [------] a king, he sent [------]; as god he sent (him); as towards men he sent; as saving he sent[------] (him); as persuading [------], not forcing, for violence has no place with god. he sent as inviting, not vindictively pursuing; he sent as loving, not condemning [------]. for he will send him to judge, and who shall abide his presence?"( ) the supposed parallel in the gospel is as follows (john iii. ): "for god sent not his son into the world that he might condemn the { } world, but that the world through him might be saved"( ) [------]. now, it is obvious at a glance that the passage in the epistle is completely different from that in the gospel in every material point of construction and language, and the only similarity consists in the idea that god's intention in sending his son was to save and not to condemn, and it is important to notice that the letter does not, either here or elsewhere, refer to the condition attached to salvation so clearly enunciated in the preceding verse: "that whosoever believeth in him might not perish." the doctrine enunciated in this passage is the fundamental principle of much of the new testament, and it is expressed with more especial clearness and force, and close analogy with the language of the letter, in the epistles of paul, to which the letter more particularly leads us, as well as in other canonical epistles, and in these we find analogies with the context quoted above, which confirm our belief that they, and not the gospel, are the source of the passage--rom. v. : "but god proveth his own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners christ died for us. . much more then....... shall we be saved [------] through him from the wrath (to come).'" cf. , . rom. viii. : "there is, therefore, now no condemnation [------] to them which are in christ jesus.( ) .... god sending his own son" [------] &c. and coming to the very nd epistle to the corinthians, from which we find the writer borrowing wholesale, we meet with the different members of the passage we have quoted: v. .... "god was reconciling the world unto himself in christ, not reckoning unto them their trespasses..... . on christ's behalf, then, we are ambassadors, as though god were entreating by us; we pray on christ's behalf: be reconciled to god. v. . for we must all appear before the judgment seat of christ, &c. . knowing, then, the fear of { } the lord, we persuade [------] men," &c. galatians iv. : "but when the fulness of time came, god sent out his son [------], . that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,"( ) &c. ephes. ii. . "but god being rich in mercy because of his great love wherewith he loved us, . even when we were dead in our trespasses, quickened us together with christ--by grace ye have been saved"--cf. verses , . thess. v. . "for god appointed us not to wrath, but to the obtaining salvation [------] through our lord jesus christ." tim. i. . "this is a faithful saying.... that christ jesus came into the world to save sinners" [------]. tim. ii. . "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of god our saviour [------]. . who willeth all men to be saved "[------]. cf. v. , . tim. i. . "who saved us [------], and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and the grace which was given to us in christ jesus before time began; . but hath been made manifest by the appearing of our saviour [------] jesus christ" these passages might be indefinitely multiplied; and they contain the sense of the passage, and in many cases the language, more closely than the fourth gospel, with which the construction and form of the sentence has no analogy. now, with regard to the logos doctrine of the epistle to { } diognetus, to which we may appropriately here refer, although we must deal with it in the briefest manner possible, so far is it from connecting the epistle with the fourth gospel, that it much more proves the writer's ignorance of that gospel. the peculiar terminology of the prologue to the gospel is nowhere found in the epistle, and we have already seen that the term logos was applied to jesus in works of the new testament, acknowledged by all to have been written long before the fourth gospel. indeed, it is quite certain, not only historically, but also from the abrupt enunciation of the doctrine in the prologue, that the theory of the logos was well known and already applied to jesus before the gospel was composed. the author knew that his statement would be understood without explanation. although the writer of the epistle makes use of the designation "logos," he shows his greek culture by giving the precedence to the term truth or reason. it has indeed been remarked( ) that the name jesus or christ does not occur anywhere in the epistle. by way of showing the manner in which "the word" is spoken of, we will give the entire passage, part of which is quoted above; the first and only one in the first ten chapters in which the term is used: "for, as i said, this was not an earthly invention which was delivered to them (christians), neither is it a mortal system which they deem it right to maintain so carefully; nor is an administration of human mysteries entrusted to them, but the almighty and invisible god himself, the creator of all things [------] has implanted in men, and established in their hearts from heaven, the truth and the word, the holy and incomprehensible [------], not as one might suppose, sending to men some servant or angel or ruler [------], or one of those ordering earthly affairs, or one of those entrusted with the government of heavenly things, but the artificer and creator of the universe [------] himself, by whom he created the heavens [------];( ) by { } whom he confined the sea within its own bounds; whose commands [------] all the stars [------]--elements) faithfully observe; from whom (the sun) has received the measure of the daily course to observe; whom the moon obeys, being bidden to shine at night; whom the stars obey, following in the course of the moon; by whom all things have been arranged and limited and subjected, the heavens and the things in the heavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea and the things in the sea [------], fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights, the things in the depths, the things in the space between. this (messenger--the truth, the word) he sent to them. now, was it, as one of men might reason, for tyranny and to cause fear and consternation? not so, but in clemency and gentleness, as a king sending his son, a king, he sent; as god he sent (him); as towards men he sent, as saving he sent (him); as persuading," &c., &c.( ) the description here given, how god in fact by reason or wisdom created the universe, has much closer analogy with earlier representations of the doctrine than with that in the fourth gospel, and if the writer does also represent the reason in a hypostatic form, it is by no means with the concreteness of the gospel doctrine of the logos, with which linguistically, moreover, as we have observed, it has no similarity. there can be no doubt that his christology presents differences from that of the fourth gospel.( ) we have already seen how jesus is called the word in works of the new testament earlier than the fourth gospel,( ) and how the doctrine is constantly referred to in the pauline epistles and the epistle to the hebrews, and it is to these, and not to the fourth gospel, that the account in the epistle to diognetus may be more properly traced. heb. l . "the son of god by whom also he made the worlds. . the heavens are works of thy hands" [------]. xi. . "by faith we understand that the worlds were framed [------], by the word of god" [------]. cor. viii. . "jesus christ by whom are all things" [------]. coloss. i. . "... the { } son of his love: . who is the image of the invisible god [------] the first-born of all creation; . because in him were all things created, the things in the heavens, and the things in the earth, the things visible and the things invisible [------] whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things have been created by him and for him [------]. . and he is before all things, and in him all things subsist. . and he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning( ) [------]; the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might be the first. . because he was well pleased that in him should all the fulness dwell. . and through him to reconcile all things unto himself," &c., &c. these passages might be greatly multiplied, but it is unnecessary, for the matter of the letter is substantially here. as to the titles of king and god they are everywhere to be found. in the apocalypse, the lamb whose name is "the word of god" [------], (xix. ) has also his name written (xix. ), "king of kings and lord of lords" [------].( ) we have already quoted the views of philo regarding the logos, which also merit comparison with the passage of the epistle, but we cannot repeat them here. the last passage to which we have to refer is the following: "for god loved men, for whose sakes he made the world, to whom he subjected all things that are in the earth... unto whom [------] he sent his only-begotten son, to whom he promised the kingdom in heaven [------] and will give it to those who love him."( ) the context is as follows: "for god loved men [------] for whose sake he made the world, to whom he subjected all things that are in it, to whom he gave reason and intelligence, to whom alone he granted the right of looking towards him, whom he formed after his own image, to whom he sent his only begotten son [------], to whom he has promised the kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved him. and when you know this, with what { } gladness, think you, you will be filled? or how will you love him, who beforehand so loved you? [------]. but if you love, you will be an _imitator of his kindness_," &c. [------].( ) this is claimed as a reference to john iii. f. "for god so loved the world [------] that he gave his only begotten son [------] that whosoever believeth in him might not perish," &c. . "for god sent not his son into the world that he might judge the world," &c. [------]. here, again, a sentence is patched together by taking fragments from the beginning and middle of a passage, and finding in them a superficial resemblance to words in the gospel. we find parallels for the passage, however, in the epistles from which the unknown writer obviously derives so much of his matter. rom. v. : "but god giveth proof of his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners christ died for us. .... through the death of his son." chap. viii. , "god sending his son, &c. .... them he also foreordained to bear the likeness of the image of his son, &c. . he that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all," &c. . (nothing can separate us) "from the love of god which is in christ jesus our lord." gal. ii. .... "by the faith of the son of god who loved me and gave himself for me." chap. iv. . "god sent out his son [------] .... that he might redeem," &c. ephes. ii. . "but god being rich in mercy because of his great love wherewith he loved us. . even when we were dead in our trespasses hath quickened us together with christ. . that he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness [------] towards us in christ jesus." chap. iv. . "be ye kind [------] one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as god also in christ forgave you."* chap. v. . "beye therefore imitators [------] of god as beloved children. . and walk { } in love [------] even as christ also loved you [------], and gave himself for us," &c., &c. titus iii. . "but when the kindness [------] and love towards men [------] of our saviour god was manifested. ... according to his mercy he saved us.... .... through jesus christ our saviour. . that being justified by his grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." the words: "or how will you love him who so beforehand loved you?" [------], canon westcott refers to john iv. , "we love god( ) because he first loved us" [------]. the linguistic differences, however, and specially the substitution of [------], distinctly oppose the claim. the words are a perfectly natural comment upon the words in ephesians, from which it is obvious the writer derived other parts of the sentence, as the striking word "kindness" [------], which is commonly used in the pauline epistles, but nowhere else in the new testament,( ) shows. dr. westcott "cannot call to mind, a parallel to the phrase 'the kingdom in heaven'"( ) which occurs above in the phrase "to whom he has promised the kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved him" [------]. this also we find in the epistles to which the writer exclusively refers in this letter: james il , "heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him" [------] i. . "... he shall receive the crown of life which he promised to them that love him" [------]. in tim. iv. , we have: "the lord... shall preserve me safe unto his heavenly kingdom" [------]( ) the very fact that there is no exact parallel to the phrase "kingdom in heaven" in our gospels is unfavourable to the argument that they were used by the author. whatever evangelical works he may have read, { } it is indisputable that the writer of this epistle does not quote any of them, and he uses no expressions and no terminology which warrants the inference that he must have been acquainted with the fourth gospel. as we have already stated, the writer of the epistle to diognetus is unknown; diognetus, the friend to whom it is addressed, is equally unknown; the letter is neither mentioned nor quoted by any of the fathers, nor by any ancient writer, and there is no external evidence as to the date of the composition. it existed only in one codex, destroyed at strasburg during the franco-german war, the handwriting of which was referred to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but it is far from certain that it was so old. the last two chapters are a falsification by a later writer than the author of the first ten. there is no internal evidence whatever in this brief didactic composition requiring or even suggesting its assignment to the second or third centuries, but on the contrary, we venture to assert that there is evidence, both internal and external, justifying the belief that it was written at a comparatively recent date. apart from the uncertainty of date, however, there is no allusion in it to any gospel. even if there were, the testimony of a letter by an unknown writer at an unknown period could not have any weight, but under the actual circumstances the epistle to diognetus furnishes absolutely no testimony at all for the apostolical origin and historical character of the fourth gospel.( ) the fulness with which we have discussed the supposed testimony of basilides( ) renders it unnecessary for us to re-enter at any length into the argument as to his knowledge of the fourth gospel. tischendorf( ) and { } canon westcott(l) assert that two passages, namely: "the true light which lighteth every man came into the world," corresponding with john i. , and: "mine hour is not yet come," agreeing with john ii. , which are introduced by hippolytus in his work against heresies( ) with a subjectless [------]" he says,"are quotations made in some lost work by basilides. we have shown that hippolytus and other writers of his time were in the habit of quoting passages from works by the founders of sects and by their later followers without any distinction, an utterly vague [------] doing service equally for all. this is the case in the present instance, and there is no legitimate reason for assigning these passages to basilides himself,( ) but on the contrary many considerations which forbid our doing so, which we have elsewhere detailed. these remarks most fully apply to valentinus, whose supposed quotations we have exhaustively discussed,( ) as well as the one passage given by hippolytus containing a sentence found in john x. ,( ) the only one which can be pointed out. "we have distinctly proved that the quotations in question are not assignable to valentinus himself, a fact which even apologists admit. there is no just ground for asserting that his terminology was derived from the fourth gospel, the whole having been in current use long before that gospel was composed. { } there is no evidence whatever that valentin us was acquainted with such a work.( ) we must generally remark, however, with regard to basilides, valentinus and all such heresiarchs and writers, that, even if it could be shown, as actually it cannot, that they were acquainted with the fourth gospel, the fact would only prove the existence of the work at a late period in the second century, but would furnish no evidence of the slightest value regarding its apostolic origin, or towards establishing its historical value. on the other hand, if, as apologists assert, these heretics possessed the fourth gospel, their deliberate and total rejection of the work furnishes evidence positively antagonistic to its claims. it is difficult to decide whether their rejection of the gospel, or their ignorance of its existence is the more unfavourable alternative. the dilemma is the very same in the case of marcion. we have already fully discussed his knowledge of our gospels,( ) and need not add anything here. it is not pretended that he made any use of the fourth gospel, and the only ground upon which it is argued that he supplies evidence even of its existence is the vague general statement of tertullian, that marcion rejected the gospels "which are put forth as genuine, and under the name of apostles or at least of contemporaries of the apostles," denying their truth and integrity, and maintaining the sole { } authority of his own gospel.( ) we have shown( ) how unwarrantable it is to affirm from such data that marcion knew, and deliberately repudiated, the four canonical gospels. the fathers, with uncritical haste and zeal, assumed that the gospels adopted by the church at the close of the second and beginning of the third centuries must equally have been invested with canonical authority from the first, and tertullian took it for granted that marcion, of whom he knew very little, must have actually rejected the four gospels of his own canon. even canon westcott admits that: "it is uncertain whether tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own point of sight."( ) there is not the slightest evidence that marcion knew the fourth gospel,( ) and if he did, it is perfectly inexplicable that he did not adopt it as peculiarly favourable to his own views.( ) if he was acquainted with the work and, nevertheless, rejected it as false and adulterated, his testimony is obviously opposed to the apostolic origin and historical accuracy of the fourth gospel, and the critical acumen which he exhibited in his selection of the pauline epistles renders his judgment of greater weight than that of most of the fathers. we have now reached an epoch when no evidence regarding the fourth gospel can have much weight, { } and the remaining witnesses need not detain us long. "we have discussed at length the diatessaron of tatian,( ) and shown that whilst there is no evidence that it was based upon our four gospels, there is reason to believe that it may have been identical with the gospel according to the hebrews, by which name, as epiphanius( ) states, it was actually called. we have only now briefly to refer to the address to the greeks [------], and to ascertain what testimony it bears regarding the fourth gospel. it was composed after the death of justin, and scarcely dates earlier than the beginning of the last quarter of the second century. no gospel and no work of the new testament is mentioned in this composition, but tischendorf( ) and others point out one or two supposed references to passages in the fourth gospel. the first of these in order, is one indicated by canon westcott,( ) but to which tischendorf does not call attention: "god was in the beginning, but we have learned that the beginning is the power of reason [------]. for the lord of the universe [------] being himself the substance [------] of all, in that creation had not been accomplished was alone, but inasmuch as he was all power, and himself the substance of things visible and invisible, all things were with him [------]. with him by means of rational power the reason [------] itself also which was in him subsisted. but by the will of his simplicity, reason [------] springs forth; but the reason [------] not { } proceeding in vain, because the first-born work [------] of the father. him we know to be the beginning of the world [------]. but he came into existence by division, not by cutting off, for that which is cut off is separated from the first: but that which is divided, receiving the choice of administration, did not render him defective from whom it was taken, &c., &c. and as the logos (reason), in the beginning begotten, begat again our creation, himself for himself creating the matter [------], so i," &c., &c.( ) it is quite evident that this doctrine of the logos is not that of the fourth gospel, from which it cannot have been derived. tatian himself( ) seems to assert that he derived it from the old testament. we have quoted the passage at length that it might be clearly { } understood; and with the opening words, we presume, for he does not quote at all but merely indicates the chapter, canon westcott compares john i. : "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god" [------]. the statement of tatian is quite different; _god_ was in the beginning" [------], and he certainly did not identify the word with god, so as to transform the statement of the gospel into this simple affirmation. in all probability his formula was merely based upon genesis i. : "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" [------].( ) the expressions: "but we have learned that the beginning [------] was the power of reason," &c., "but the reason [------] not proceeding in vain became the first-born work [------] of the father. him we know to be the beginning [------] of the world," recall many early representations of the logos, to which we have already, referred: pro v. viii. : "the lord created me the beginning [------] of ways for his works [------], . before the ages he established me, in the beginning [------] before he made the earth," &c., &c. in the apocalypse also the word is called "the beginning [------] of the creation of god," and it will be remembered that justin gives testimony from prov. viii. if. "that god begat before all the creatures a beginning [------] a certain rational power [------], out of himself," &c., &c., and elsewhere: "as the logos declared through solomon, that this same.... had been begotten of god, before all created beings, both beginning [------]" &c.( ) we need not, however, refer to { } the numerous passages in philo and in justin, not derived from the fourth gospel, which point to a different source for tatian's doctrine. it is sufficient that both his opinions and his terminology differ distinctly from that gospel.( ) the next passage we at once subjoin in contrast with the parallel in the fourth gospel: [------] the context to this passage in the oration is as follows: tatian is arguing about the immortality of the soul, and he states that the soul is not in itself immortal but mortal, but that nevertheless it is possible for it not to die. if it do not know the truth it dies, but rises again at the end of the world, receiving eternal death as a punishment. "again, however, it does not die, though it be for a time dissolved, if it has acquired knowledge of god; for in itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this, therefore, is (the meaning of) the saying: the darkness comprehends not the light. for the soul [------] did not itself save the spirit [------], but was saved by it, and the light comprehended the darkness. the logos (reason) truly is the light of god, but the ignorant soul is darkness [------]. for this reason, if it remain we have already mentioned that the gospel according to peter contained the doctrine of the logos. { } alone, it tends downwards to matter, dying with the flesh," &c., &c.( ) the source of "the saying" is not mentioned, and it is evident that, even if it were taken to be a reference to the fourth gospel, nothing would thereby be proved but the mere existence of the gospel. "the saying," however, is distinctly different in language from the parallel in the gospel, and it may be from a different gospel. we have already remarked that philo calls the logos "the light,"( ) and quoting in a peculiar form ps. xxvi. : "for the lord is my light [------] and my saviour," he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day and night, so, moses says, "god divides light and darkness" [------].( ) when we turn away to things of sense we use "another light," which is in no way different from "darkness."( ) the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness in the canonical epistles( ) shows how current it was in the church; and nothing is more certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor confined to, the fourth gospel. the third and last passage is as follows: [------] { } tatian here speaks of god, and not of the logos, and in this respect, as well as in language and context, the passage differs from the fourth gospel. the phrase is not introduced as a quotation, and no reference is made to any gospel. the purpose for which the words are used, again, rather points to the first chapters of genesis than to the dogmatic prologue enunciating the doctrine of the logos.( ) under all these circumstances, the source from which the expression may have been derived cannot with certainty be ascertained and, as in the preceding instance, even if it be assumed that the words show acquaintance with the fourth gospel, nothing could be proved but the mere existence of the work about a century and a half after the events which it records. it is obvious that in no case does tatian afford the slightest evidence of the apostolic origin or historical veracity of the fourth gospel. dr. lightfoot points out another passage, § , [------], which he compares with john iv. , where the same words occur. it is right to add that he himself remarks: "if it had stood alone i should certainly not have regarded it as decisive. but the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic passage of the fourth gospel.( ) neither tischendorf nor dr. westcott refer to it. the fact is, however, that the epigrammatic form only exists when the phrase is quoted without its context. "god is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the creator of material spirits, and of the forms that are in it. he is invisible and impalpable," &c. &c. further on, tatian says (§ ), "for the perfect god is without flesh, but man is flesh." &c. a large { } part of the oration is devoted to discussing the nature of god, and the distinction between spirit [------] and soul [------], and it is unreasonable to assert that a man like tatian could not make the declaration that god is a spirit without quoting the fourth gospel. we have generally discussed the testimony of dionysius of corinth,( ) melito of sardis,( ) and claudius apol-linaris,( ) and need not say more here. the fragments attributed to them neither mention nor quote the fourth gospel, but in no case could they furnish evidence to authenticate the work. the same remarks apply to athenagoras.( ) canon westcott only ventures to say that he "appears to allude to passages in st. mark and st. john, but they are all anonymous."( ) the passages in which he speaks of the logos, which are those referred to here, are certainly not taken from the fourth gospel, and his doctrine is expressed in terminology which is different from that of the gospel, and is deeply tinged with platonism.( ) he appeals to proverbs viii. , already so frequently quoted by us, for confirmation by the prophetic spirit of his exposition of the logos doctrine.( ) he nowhere identifies the logos with jesus;( ) indeed he does not once make use of the name of christ in his works. he does not show the slightest knowledge of the doctrine of salvation so constantly enunciated in the fourth gospel. there can be no doubt, as we have already shown,( ) that he considered the old testament to { } be the only inspired holy scriptures. not only does he not mention nor quote any of our gospels, but the only instance in which he makes any reference to sayings of jesus, otherwise than by the indefinite [------] "he says," is one in which he introduces a saying which is not found in our gospels by the words: "the logos again saying to us:" [------], &c. from the same source, which was obviously not our canonical gospels, we have, therefore, reason to conclude that athenagoras derived all his knowledge of gospel history and doctrine. we need not add that this writer affords no testimony whatever as to the origin or character of the fourth gospel. it is scarcely worth while to refer to the epistle of vienne and lyons, a composition dating at the earliest a.d. - , in which no direct reference is made to any writing of the new testament.( ) acquaintance with the fourth gospel is argued from the following passage: [------] now such a passage cannot prove the use of the fourth gospel. no source is indicated in the epistle from which the saying of jesus, which of course apologists assert to be historical, was derived. it presents decided variations from the parallel in the fourth gospel; and in the { } synoptics we find sufficient indications of similar discourses l to render it very probable that other gospels may have contained the passage quoted in the epistle. in no case could an anonymous reference like this be of any weight as evidence for the apostolic origin of the fourth gospel. we need not further discuss ptolemoeus and heracleon. we have shown( ) that the date at which these heretics flourished places them beyond the limits within which we propose to confine ourselves. in regard to ptolemæus all that is affirmed is that, in the epistle to flora ascribed to him, expressions found in john i. are used. the passage as it is given by epiphanius is as follows: "besides, that the world was created by the same, the apostle states (saying all things have been made [------] by him and without him nothing was made)." [------].( ) now the supposed quotation is introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the sense, and there is every probability that it was added as an illustration by epiphanius, and was not in the epistle to flora at all. omitting the parenthesis, the sentence is a very palpable reference to the apostle paul, and coloss. i. .( ) in regard to heraclcon, it is asserted from the unsupported references of origen( ) that he wrote a commentary on the fourth gospel. even if this be a fact, there is not a single word of it preserved by origen which in the least degree bears upon the apostolic origin { } and trustworthiness of the gospel. neither of these heresiarchs, therefore, is of any value as a witness for the authenticity of the fourth gospel. the heathen celsus, as we have shown,( ) wrote at a period when no evidence which he could well give of his own could have been of much value in supporting our gospels. he is pressed into service,( ) however, because after alluding to various circumstances of gospel history he says: "these things, therefore, being taken out of your own writings, we have no need of other testimony, for you fall upon your own swords,"( ) and in another place he says that certain christians "alter the gospel from its first written form in three-fold, four-fold, and many-fold ways, and re-mould it in order to have the means of contradicting the arguments (of opponents)." ( ) this is supposed to refer to the four canonical gospels. apart from the fact that origen replies to the first of these passages, that celsus has brought forward much concerning jesus which is not in accordance with the narratives of the gospels, it is unreasonable to limit the accusation of "many-fold" corruption to four gospels, when it is undeniable that the gospels and writings long current in the church were very numerous. in any case, what could such a statement as this do towards establishing the apostolic origin and credibility of the fourth gospel? we might pass over the _canon of muratori_ entirely, { } as being beyond the limit of time to which we confine ourselves,( ) but the unknown writer of the fragment gives a legend with regard to the composition of the fourth gospel which we may quote here, although its obviously mythical character renders it of no value as evidence regarding the authorship of the gospel. the writer says: quarti euangeliorum iohannis ex decipolis cohortantibus condescipulis et episcopis suis dixit conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue latum andrew ex apostolis ut recognis centibus cunctis iohannis suo nomine cuncta describeret et ideo ( ) licit uaria sin culis euangeliorum libris principia docoantur nihil tamen diffort creden tium fidei cum uno ac principali spiritu de clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui tate de passione de resurrectione de conuersatione cum decipulis suis ac de gemino eius aduentu primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo... .u ( ) secundum potestate regali... pre clarum quod futurum est ( ) quid ergo minim si iohannes tarn constanter sincula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semeipsu quae uidimus oculis nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus nostra palpauerunt heec scripsimus nobis sic enim non solum uisurem sed et auditorem sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordi nem profetetur { } "the fourth of the gospels, of john, one of the disciples. to his fellow-disciples and bishops (episcopis) urging him he said: 'fast with me to-day for three days, and let us relate to each other that which shall be revealed to each.' on the same night it was revealed to andrew, one of the apostles, that, with the supervision of all, john should relate all things in his own name. and, therefore, though various principles (principia) are taught by each book of the gospels, nevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since, in all, all things are declared by one ruling spirit concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, concerning the intercourse with the disciples, and concerning his double advent; the first in lowliness of estate, which has taken place, the second in regal power and splendour, which is still future. what wonder, therefore, if john should so constantly bring forward each thing (singula) also in his epistles, saying in regard to himself: the things which we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things have we written unto you. for thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonders of the lord in order." it is obvious that in this passage we have an apologetic defence of the fourth gospel,( ) which unmistakably implies antecedent denial of its authority and apostolic origin. the writer not only ascribes it to john, but he clothes it with the united authority of the rest of the apostles, in { } a manner which very possibly aims at explaining the supplementary chapter xxi., with its testimony to the truth of the preceding narrative. in his zeal, the writer goes so far as to falsify a passage of the epistle, and convert it into a declaration by the author of the letter himself that he had written the gospel. "'the things which we have seen, &c., these things have we written unto you' (hæc scripsi-mus vobis).( ) for thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonders of the lord in order." credner argues that in speaking of john as "one of the disciples" (ex discipulis), and of andrew as "one of the apostles," the writer intends to distinguish between john the disciple, who wrote the gospel and epistle, and john the apostle, who wrote the apocalypse, and that it was for this reason that he sought to dignify him by a special revelation, through the apostle andrew, selecting him to write the gospel. credner, therefore, concludes that here we have an ancient ecclesiastical tradition ascribing the gospel and first epistle to one of the disciples of jesus different from the apostle john.( ) into this, however, we need not enter, nor is it necessary for us to demonstrate the mythical nature of this narrative regarding the origin of the gospel. we have merely given this extract from the fragment to make our statement regarding it complete. not only is the evidence of the fragment of no value, from the lateness of its date and the uncritical character of its author, but a vague and fabulous tradition recorded by an unknown writer could not, in any case, furnish testimony calculated to establish the apostolic origin and trustworthiness of the fourth gospel. { } chapter ii. authorship and character of the fourth gospel the result of our inquiry into the evidence for the fourth gospel is sufficiently decided to render further examination unnecessary. we have seen that, for some century and a half after the events recorded in the work, there is not only no testimony whatever connecting the fourth gospel with the apostle john, but no certain trace even of the existence of the gospel. there has not been the slightest evidence in any of the writings of the fathers which we have examined even of a tradition that the apostle john had composed any evangelical work at all, and the claim advanced in favour of the christian miracles to contemporaneous evidence of extraordinary force and veracity by undoubted eye-witnesses so completely falls to the ground, that we might here well bring this part of our inquiry to a close. there are, however, so many peculiar circumstances connected with the fourth gospel, both in regard to its authorship and to its relationship with the three synoptics, which invite further attention, that we propose briefly to review some of them. we must, however, carefully restrict ourselves to the limits of our inquiry, and resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive discussion of the problem presented by the fourth gospel from a more general literary point of view. { } the endeavour to obtain some positive, or at least negative, information regarding the author of the fourth gospel is facilitated by the fact that several other works in the new testament canon are ascribed to him. these works present such marked and distinct characteristics that, apart from the fact that their number extends the range of evidence, they afford an unusual opportunity of testing the tradition which assigns them all to the apostle john, by comparing the clear indications which they give of the idiosyncrasies of their author with the independent data which we possess regarding the history and character of the apostle. it is asserted by the church that john the son of zebedee, one of the disciples of jesus, is the composer of no less than five of our canonical writings, and it would be impossible to select any books of our new testament presenting more distinct features, or more widely divergent views, than are to be found in the apocalypse on the one hand, and the gospel and three epistles on the other. whilst a strong family likeness exists between the epistles and the gospel, and they exhibit close analogies both in thought and language, the apocalypse, on the contrary, is so different from them in language, in style, in religious views and terminology, that it is almost impossible to believe that the writer of the one could be the author of the other. the translators of our new testament have laboured, and not in vain, to eliminate as far as possible all individuality of style and language, and to reduce the various books of which it is composed to one uniform smoothness of diction. it is, therefore, impossible for the mere english reader to appreciate the immense difference which exists between the harsh and hebraistic greek of the apocalypse and the polished { } elegance of the fourth gospel, and it is to be feared that the rarity of critical study has prevented any general recognition of the almost equally striking contrast of thought between the two works. the remarkable peculiarities which distinguish the apocalypse and gospel of john, however, were very early appreciated, and almost the first application of critical judgment to the canonical books of the new testament is the argument of dionysius bishop of alexandria, about the middle of the third century, that the author of the fourth gospel could not be the writer of the book of revelation.( ) the dogmatic predilections which at that time had begun to turn against the apocalypse, the nonfulfilment of the prophecies of which disappointed and puzzled the early church, led dionysius to solve the difficulty by deciding in favour of the authenticity of the gospel, but at least he recognized the dilemma which has since occupied so much of biblical criticism. it is not necessary to enter upon any exhaustive analysis of the apocalypse and gospel to demonstrate anew that both works cannot have emanated from the same mind. this has already been conclusively done by others. some apologetic writers,--greatly influenced, no doubt, by the express declaration of the church, and satisfied by analogies which could scarcely fail to exist between two works dealing with a similar theme,--together with a very few independent critics, have asserted the authenticity of both works.( ) the great majority of { } critics, however, have fully admitted the impossibility of recognizing a common source for the fourth gospel and the apocalypse of john.( ) the critical question regarding the two works has, in fact, reduced itself to the dilemma which may be expressed as follows, in the words of llicke: "either the gospel and the first epistle are genuine writings of the apostle john, and in that case the apocalypse is no genuine work of that apostle, or the inverse."( ) after an elaborate comparison of the two writings, the same writer, who certainly will not be suspected of wilfully subversive criticism, resumes: "the difference between the language, way { } of expression, and mode of thought and doctrine of the apocalypse and the rest of the johannine writings, is so comprehensive and intense, so individual and so radical; the affinity and agreement, on the contrary, are so general, and in details so fragmentary and uncertain (zuruckweichend), that the apostle john, if he really he the author of the gospel and of the epistle--which we here assume--cannot have composed the apocalypse either before or after the gospel and the epistle. if all critical experience and rules in such literary questions are not deceptive, it is certain that the evangelist and apocalyptist are two different persons of the name of john,"(l) &c. de wette, another conservative critic, speaks with equal decision. after an able comparison of the two works, he says: "from all this it follows (and in new testament criticism no result is more certain), that the apostle john, if he be the author of the fourth gospel and of the johannine epistles, did not write the apocalypse, or, if the apocalypse be his work, that he is not the author of the other writings."( ) ewald is equally positive: "above all," he says, "we should err in tracing this work (the gospel) to the apostle, if the apocalypse of the new testament were by him. that this much earlier writing cannot have been composed by the author of the later is an axiom which i consider i have already, (in - ) so convincingly demonstrated, that it would be superfluous now to return to it, especially as, since then, all men capable of forming a judgment are of the same opinion, and what has been brought forward by a few writers against it too clearly depends upon { } influences foreign to science."( ) we may, therefore, consider the point generally admitted, and proceed very briefly to discuss the question upon this basis. the external evidence that the apostle john wrote the apocalypse is more ancient than that for the authorship of any book of the new testament, excepting some of the epistles of paul, and this is admitted even by critics who ultimately deny the authenticity of the work.( ) passing over the very probable statement of andrew of cæsarea,( ) that papias recognized the apocalypse as an inspired work, and the inference drawn from this fact that he referred it to the apostle, we at once proceed to justin martyr, who affirms in the clearest and most positive manner the apostolic origin of the work. he speaks to tryphon of "a certain man whose name was john, one of the apostles of christ, who prophesied by a revelation made to him," of the millennium, and subsequent general resurrection and judgment.( ) the statement of justin is all the more important from the fact that he does not name any other writing of the new testament, and that the old testament was still for him the only holy scripture. the genuineness of this { } testimony is not called in question by any one. eusebius states that melito of sardis wrote a work on the apocalypse of john,( ) and jerome mentions the treatise.( ) there can be no doubt that had melito thrown the slightest doubt on the apostolic origin of the apocalypse, eusebius, whose dogmatic views led him to depreciate that writing, would have referred to the fact. eusebius also mentions that apollonius, a presbyter of ephesus, quoted the apocalypse against the montanists, and there is reason to suppose that he did so as an apostolic work.( ) eusebius further states that theophilus of antioch made use of testimony from the apocalypse of john;( ) but although, as eusebius does not mention anything to the contrary, it is probable that theophilus really recognized the book to be by john the apostle, the uncritical haste of eusebius renders his vague statement of little value. we do not think it worth while to quote the evidence of later writers. although irenæus, who repeatedly assigns the apocalypse to john, the disciple of the lord,( ) is cited by apologists as a very important witness, more especially from his intercourse with polycarp, we do not attribute any value to his testimony, both from the late date at which he wrote, and from the uncritical and credulous character of his mind. although he appeals to the testimony of those "who saw john face to face" with regard to the number of the name of the beast, his own utter ignorance of the interpretation shows how little information he can have derived from polycarp.( ) the same remarks apply still more strongly to tertullian, who, however, most { } unhesitatingly assigns the apocalypse to the apostle john.( ) it would be useless more particularly to refer to later evidence, however, or quote even the decided testimony in its favour of clement of alexandria,( ) or origen.( ) the first doubt cast upon the authenticity of the apocalypse occurs in the argument of dionysius of alexandria, one of the disciples of origen, in the middle of the third century. he mentions that some had objected to the whole work as without sense or reason, and as displaying such dense ignorance, that it was impossible that an apostle or even one in the church, could have written it, and they assigned it to cerinthus, who held the doctrine of the reign of christ on earth.( ) these objections, it is obvious, are merely dogmatic, and do not affect to be historical. they are in fact a good illustration of the method by which the canon was formed. if the doctrine of any writing met with the approval of the early church, it was accepted with unhesitating faith, and its pretension to apostolic origin was admitted as a natural consequence; but if, on the other hand, the doctrine of the writing was not clearly that of the community, it was rejected without further examination. it is an undeniable fact, that not a single trace exists of the application of historical criticism to any book of the new testament in the early ages of christianity. the case of the apocalypse is most intelligible:--so long as the expectation and hope of a second advent and of a personal reign of the risen and glorified christ, of the prevalence of which we have abundant testimony in the pauline epistles and other early works, continued to animate the church, the { } apocalypse which excited and fostered them was a popular volume: but as years passed away and the general longing of christians, eagerly marking the signs of the times, was again and again disappointed, and the hope of a millennium began either to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed, the apocalypse proportionately lost favour, or was regarded as an incomprehensible book misleading the world by illusory promises. its history is that of a highly dogmatic treatise esteemed or contemned in proportion to the ebb and flow of opinion regarding the doctrines which it expresses. the objections of dionysius, resting first upon dogmatic grounds and his inability to understand the apocalyptic utterances of the book, took the shape we have mentioned of a critical dilemma:--the author of the gospel could not at the same time be the author of the apocalypse. dogmatic predilection decided the question in favour of the apostolic origin of the fourth gospel, and the reasoning by which that decision is arrived at has, therefore, no critical force or value. the fact still remains that justin martyr distinctly refers to the apocalypse as the work of the apostle john and, as we have seen, no similar testimony exists in support of the claims of the fourth gospel. as another most important point, we may mention that there is probably not another work of the new testament the precise date of the composition of which, within a very few weeks, can so positively be affirmed. no result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis and is now more universally accepted by all competent critics than the fact that the apocalypse was written in a.d. - .( ) the writer distinctly and repeatedly mentions his name: i. , "the revelation of jesus christ.... { } unto his servant john;"( ) i. , "john to the seven churches which are in asia;"( ) and he states that the work was written in the island of patmos where he was "on account of the word of god and the testimony of jesus."( ) ewald, who decides in the most arbitrary manner against the authenticity of the apocalypse and in favour of the johannine authorship of the gospel, objects that the author, although he certainly calls himself john, does not assume to be an apostle, but merely terms himself the servant [------] of christ like other true christians, and distinctly classes himself amongst the prophets( ) and not amongst the apostles.( ) we find, however, that paul, who was not apt to waive his claims to the apostolate, was content to call himself: "paul a servant [------] of jesus christ, called to be an apostle," in writing to the romans; (i. ) and the superscription of the epistle to the philippians is: "paul and timothy servants [------] of christ jesus."( ) there was, moreover, reason why { } the author of the book of revelation, a work the form of which was decidedly based upon that of daniel and other jewish apocalyptic writings, should rather adopt the character of prophet than the less suitable designation of apostle upon such an occasion. it is clear that he counted fully upon being generally known under the simple designation of "john," and when we consider the unmistakeable terms of authority with which he addresses the seven churches, it is scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was the apostle, or distinctly desired to assume his personality. it is not necessary for us here to enter into any discussion regarding the "presbyter john," for it is generally admitted that even he could not have had at that time any position in asia minor which could have warranted such a tone. if the name of apostle, therefore, be not directly assumed--and it was not necessary to assume it--the authority of one is undeniably inferred. ewald, however, argues that, on the contrary, the author could not more clearly express that he was not one of the twelve, than when he imagines (apoc. xxi. ) the names of the 'twelve apostles of the lamb' shining upon the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the future heavenly jerusalem. he considers that no intelligent person could thus publicly glorify himself or anticipate the honour which god alone can bestow. "and can any one seriously believe," he indignantly inquires, "that one of the twelve, yea, that even he whom we know as the most delicate and refined amongst them could have written this of himself?"( ) now, in the first place, we must remark that in this discussion { } it is not permissible to speak of our knowing john the apostle as distinguished above all the rest of the twelve for such qualities. nowhere do we find such a representation of him except in the fourth gospel, if even there, but, as we shall presently see, rather the contrary, and the fourth gospel cannot here be received as evidence. we might, by way of retort, point out to those who assert the inspiration of the apocalypse, that the symbolical representation of the heavenly jerusalem is held to be practically objective, a revelation of things that "must shortly come to pass," and not a mere subjective sketch coloured according to the phantasy of the writer. passing on, however, it must be apparent that the whole account of the heavenly city is typical, and that in basing its walls upon the twelve, he does not glorify himself personally, but simply gives its place to the idea which was symbolised when jesus is represented as selecting twelve disciples, the number of the twelve tribes, upon whose preaching the spiritual city was to be built up. the jewish belief in a special preference of the jews before all nations doubtless suggested this, and it forms a leading feature in the strong hebraistic form of the writer's christianity. the heavenly city is simply a glorified jerusalem; the twelve apostles, representatives of the twelve tribes, set apart for the regeneration of israel, are the foundation-stones of the new city with its twelve gates, on which are written the names of the twelve tribes of israel( ) for whom the city is more particularly provided. for , of israel are first sealed, , of each of the twelve tribes before the seer beholds the great multitude of all nations and tribes and peoples.( ) the whole description is a { } mere allegory characterized by the strongest jewish dogmatism, and it is of singular value for the purpose of identifying the author. moreover, the apparent glorification of the twelve is more than justified by the promise which jesus is represented by the synoptics(l) as making to them in person. when peter, in the name of the twelve, asks what is reserved for those who have forsaken all and followed him, jesus replies: "verily i say unto you that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall be set upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel."( ) ewald himself, in his distribution of the materials of our existing first synoptic to the supposed original sources, assigns this passage to the very oldest gospel.( ) what impropriety is there, and what improbability, therefore, that an apostle, in an apocalyptic allegory, should represent the names of the twelve apostles as inscribed upon the twelve foundation stones of the spiritual jerusalem, as the names of the twelve tribes of israel were inscribed upon the twelve gates of the city? on the contrary, we submit that it is probable under the circumstances that an apostle should make such a representation, and in view of the facts regarding the apostle john himself which we have from the synoptics, it is particularly in harmony with his character, and these characteristics directly tend to establish his identity with the author. "how much less is it credible of the apostle john," says ewald, elsewhere, pursuing the same argument, "who, as a writer, is so incomparably modest and { } delicate in feeling, and does not in a single one of the writings really emanating from him name himself as the author, or even proclaim his own praise."(l) this is merely sentimental assumption of facts to which we shall hereafter allude, but if the "incomparable modesty" of which he speaks really existed, nothing could more conclusively separate the author of the fourth gospel from the son of zebedee whom we know in the synoptics, or more support the claims of the apocalypse. in the first place, we must assert that, in writing a serious history of the life and teaching of jesus, full of marvellous events and astounding doctrines, the omission of his name by an apostle can not only not be recognized as genuine modesty, but must be condemned as culpable neglect. it is perfectly incredible that an apostle could have written such a work without attaching his name as the guarantee of his intimate acquaintance with the events and statements he records. what would be thought of a historian who published a history without a single reference to recognized authorities, and yet who did not declare even his own name as some evidence of his truth? the fact is, that the first two synoptics bear no author's name because they are not the work of any one man, but the collected materials of many; the third synoptic only pretends to be a compilation for private use; and the fourth gospel bears no simple signature because it is neither the work of an apostle, nor of an eye-witness of the events and hearer of the teaching it records. if it be considered incredible, however, that an apostle could, even in an allegory, represent the names of the twelve as written on the foundation stones of the new jerusalem, and the incomparable modesty and delicacy { } of feeling of the assumed author of the fourth gospel be contrasted with it so much to the disadvantage of the writer of the apocalypse, we ask whether this reference to the collective twelve can be considered at all on a par with the self-glorification of the disguised author of the gospel, who, not content with the simple indication of himself as john a servant of jesus christ, and with sharing distinction equally with the rest of the twelve, assumes to himself alone a pre-eminence in the favour and affection of his master, as well as a distinction amongst his fellow disciples, of which we first hear from himself, and which is anything but corroborated by the three synoptics? the supposed author of the fourth gospel, it is true, does not plainly mention his name, but he distinguishes himself as "the disciple whom jesus loved," and represents himself as "leaning on jesus' breast at supper."( ) this distinction assumed to himself, and this preference over the other disciples in the love of him whom he represents as god, is much greater self-glorification than that of the author of the apocalypse. we shall presently see how far ewald is right in saying, moreover, that the author does not clearly indicate the person for whom at least he desires to be mistaken. we must conclude that these objections have no weight, and that there is no internal evidence whatever against the supposition that the "john" who announces himself as the author of the apocalypse was the apostle. on the contrary, the tone of authority adopted throughout, and the evident certainty that his identity would everywhere be recognized, denote a position in the church which no other person of the name of john could well have held at the time when the apocalypse was written. { } the external evidence, therefore, which indicates the apostle john as the author of the apocalypse is quite in harmony with the internal testimony of the book itself. we have already pointed out the strong colouring of judaism in the views of the writer. its imagery is thoroughly jewish, and its allegorical representations are entirely based upon jewish traditions, and hopes. the heavenly city is a new jerusalem; its twelve gates are dedicated to the twelve tribes of israel; god and the lamb are the temple of it; and the sealed of the twelve tribes have the precedence over the nations, and stand with the lamb on mount zion (xiv. ) having his name and his father's written on their foreheads. the language in which the book is written is the most hebraistic greek of the new testament, as its contents are the most deeply tinged with judaism. if, finally, we seek for some traces of the character of the writer, we see in every page the impress of an impetuous fiery spirit, whose symbol is the eagle, breathing forth vengeance against the enemies of the messiah and impatient till it be accomplished, and the whole of the visions of the apocalypse proceed to the accompaniment of the rolling thunders of god's wrath. we may now turn to examine such historical data as exist regarding john the son of zebedee, and to inquire whether they accord better with the character and opinions of the author of the apocalypse or of the evangelist. john and his brother james are represented by the synoptics as being the sons of zebedee and salome. they were fishermen on the sea of galilee, and at the call of jesus they left their ship and their father and followed him.( ) their fiery and impetuous character led { } jesus to give them the surname of [------]: "sons of thunder,"( ) an epithet justified by several incidents which are related regarding them. upon one occasion, john sees one casting out devils in his master's name, and in an intolerant spirit forbids him because he did not follow them, for which he is rebuked by jesus.( ) another time, when the inhabitants of a samaritan village would not receive them, john and james angrily turn to jesus and say: "lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as elijah did?"( ) a remarkable episode will have presented itself already to the mind of every reader, which the second synoptic gospel narrates as follows: mark x. , "and james and john the sons of zebedee come unto him saying unto him: teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask thee. . and he said unto them: what would ye that i should do for you? . they said unto him: grant that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory. . but jesus said to them: ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink the cup that i drink? or be baptized with the baptism that i am baptized with? . and they said unto him: we can. and jesus said unto them: the cup that i drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that i am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: . but to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared. . and when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased with james and john." it is difficult to say whether the { } effrontery and selfishness of the request, or the assurance with which the brethren assert their power to emulate the master is more striking in this scene. apparently, the grossness of the proceeding already began to be felt when our first gospel was edited, for it represents the request as made by the mother of james and john; but that is a very slight decrease of the offence, inasmuch as the brethren are obviously consenting, if not inciting, parties to the prayer, and utter their "we can," with the same absence of "incomparable modesty."( ) after the death of jesus, john remained in jerusalem,( ) and chiefly confined his ministry to the city and its neighbourhood.( ) the account which hegesippus gives of james the brother of jesus who was appointed overseer of the church in jerusalem will not be forgotten,( ) and we refer to it merely in illustration of primitive christianity. however mythical elements are worked up into the narrative, one point is undoubted fact, that the christians of that community were but a sect of judaism, merely superadding to mosaic doctrines belief in the actual advent of the messiah whom moses and the prophets had foretold; and we find, in the acts of the apostles, peter and john represented as "going up into the temple at the hour of prayer,"( ) like other jews. in the epistle of paul to the galatians, we have most valuable evidence with regard to the apostle john. paul found him still in jerusalem on the occasion of the visit referred to in that letter, about a.d. -- . we need not quote at length the important passage gal. ii. ff., but the fact { } is undeniable, and stands upon stronger evidence than almost any other particular regarding the early church, being distinctly and directly stated by paul himself: that the three "pillar" apostles representing the church there were james, peter, and john. peter is markedly termed the apostle of the circumcision, and the differences between him and paul are evidence of the opposition of their views. james and john are clearly represented as sharing the views of peter, and whilst paul finally agrees with them that he is to go to the gentiles, the three [------] elect to continue their ministry to the circumcision.( ) here is john, therefore, clearly devoted to the apostleship of the circumcision as opposed to paul, whose views, as we gather from the whole of paul's account, were little more than tolerated by the [------]. before leaving new testament data, we may here point out the statement in the acts of the apostles that peter and john were known to be "unlettered and ignorant men"( ) [------]. later tradition mentions one or two circumstances regarding john to which we may briefly refer. irenæus states: "there are those who heard him (polycarp) say that john, the disciple of the lord, going to bathe at ephesus and perceiving cerinthus within, rushed forth from the bath-house without bathing, but crying out: 'let us fly lest the bath-house fall down: cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, being within it.'... so great was the care which the apostles and their disciples took not to hold even verbal intercourse with any of the corrupters of the truth,"( ) &c. polycrates, who was bishop of ephesus { } about the beginning of the third century, states that the apostle john wore the mitre and petalon of the high priest [------],( ) a tradition which agrees with the jewish tendencies of the apostle of the circumcision as paul describes him.( ) now if we compare these data regarding john the son of zebedee with the character of john the author of the apocalypse, as we trace it in the work itself, it is impossible not to be struck by the singular agreement. the hebraistic greek and abrupt inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of galilee, and the fierce and intolerant spirit which pervades the book is precisely that which formerly forbade the working of miracles, even in the name of the master, by any not of the immediate circle of jesus, and which desired to consume an inhospitable village with fire from heaven.( ) the judaistic form of christianity which is represented throughout the apocalypse, and the jewish elements which enter so largely into its whole composition, are precisely those we need not refer to any of the other legends regarding john, but it may be well to mention the tradition common amongst the fathers which assigned to him the cognomen of "the virgin." one codex gives as the superscription of the apocalypse: "t[------]" and we know that it is reported in early writings that, of all the apostles, only john and the apostle paul remained unmarried, whence probably, in part, this title. in connection with this we may point to the importance attached to virginity in the apocalypse, xiv. ; cf. schwegler, das naohap. zeit, ii. p. ; lilcke, comm. lib. d. br. joh., , p. f.; craftier, einl. n. t., i. p. . the very objection of ewald regarding the glorification of the twelve, if true, would be singularly in keeping with the audacious request of john and his brother, to sit on the right and left hand of the glorified jesus, for we find none of the "incomparable modesty" which the imaginative critic attributes to the author of the fourth gospel in the john of the synoptics. { } which we might expect from john the apostle of the circumcision and the associate of james and of peter in the very centre of judaism. parts of the apocalypse, indeed, derive a new significance when we remember the opposition which the apostle of the gentiles met with from the apostles of the circumcision, as plainly declared by paul in his epistle to the galatians ii. . ff., and apparent in other parts of his writings. we have already seen the scarcely disguised attack which is made on paul in the clementine homilies under the name of simon the magician, the apostle peter following him from city to city for the purpose of denouncing and refuting his teaching. there can be no doubt that the animosity against paul which was felt by the ebionitic party, to which john as well as peter belonged, was extreme, and when the novelty of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by him, is considered, it is very comprehensible. in the apocalypse, we find undeniable traces of it which accord with what paul himself says, and with the undoubted tradition of the early church. not only is paul silently excluded from the number of the apostles, which might be intelligible when the typical nature of the number twelve is considered, but allusion is undoubtedly made to him, in the epistles to the churches. it is clear that paul is referred to in the address to the church of ephesus: "and thou didst try them which say that they are apostles and are not, and didst find them false;"( ) and also in the words to the church of smyrna: "but i have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the teaching of balaam, who taught { } balak to cast a stumbling block before the sons of israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols,"( ) &c., as well as elsewhere.( ) without dwelling on this point, however, we think it must be apparent to every unprejudiced person that the apocalypse singularly corresponds in every respect--language, construction, and thought--with what we are told of the character of the apostle john by the synoptic gospels and by tradition, and that the internal evidence, therefore, accords with the external in attributing the composition of the apocalypse to that apostle. } we may without hesitation affirm, at least, that with the exception of one or two of the epistles of paul there is { } no work of the new testament which is supported by such close evidence. we need not discuss the tradition as to the residence of the apostle john in asia minor, regarding which much might be said. those who accept the authenticity of the apocalypse of course admit its composition in the neighbourhood of ephesus,( ) and see in this the confirmation of the wide-spread tradition that the apostle spent a considerable period of the latter part of his life in that city. we may merely mention, in passing, that a historical basis for the tradition has occasionally been disputed, and has latterly again been denied by some able critics.( ) the evidence for this, as for everything else connected with the early ages of christianity, is extremely unsatisfactory. nor need we trouble ourselves with the dispute as to the presbyter john, to whom many ascribe the composition, on the one hand, of the apocalypse and, on the other, of the gospel, according as they finally accept the one or the other alternative of the critical dilemma which we have explained. we have only to do with the apostle john and his connection with either of the two writings. if we proceed to compare the character of the apostle john, as we have it depicted in the synoptics and other writings to which we have referred, with that of the author of the fourth gospel, and to contrast the peculiarities of both, we have a very different result. instead of the hebraistic greek and harsh diction which might { } be expected from the unlettered and ignorant fisherman of galilee, we find, in the fourth gospel, the purest and least hebraistic greek of any of the gospels (some parts of the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world, and in too many cases prevented the calm exercise of judgment instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the son of thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and love. instead of the judaistic christianity of the apostle of circumcision who merely tolerates paul, we find a mind which has so completely detached itself from judaism that the writer makes the very appellation of "jew" equivalent to that of an enemy of the truth. not only are the customs and feasts of the jews disregarded and spoken of as observances of a people with whom the writer has no concern, but he anticipates the day when neither on mount gerizim nor yet at jerusalem men shall worship the father, but when it shall be recognized that the only true worship is that which is offered in spirit and in truth. faith in jesus christ and the merits of his death is the only way by which man can attain to eternal life, and the mosaic law is practically abolished. we venture to assert that, taking the portrait of john the son of zebedee, which is drawn in the synoptics and the epistle of paul to the galatians, supplemented by later tradition, to which we have referred, and comparing it with that of the writer of the fourth gospel, no unprejudiced mind can fail to recognize that there are not two features alike. it is the misfortune of this case, that the beauty of the gospel under trial has too frequently influenced the decision of the judges, and men who have, in other { } matters, exhibited sound critical judgment, in this abandon themselves to sheer sentimentality, and indulge in rhapsodies when reasons would be more appropriate. bearing in mind that we have given the whole of the data regarding john the son of zebedee furnished by new testament writings,--excluding merely the fourth gospel itself, which, of course, cannot at present be received in evidence,--as well as the only traditional information possessing, from its date and character, any appreciable value, it will become apparent that every argument which proceeds on the assumption that john was the beloved disciple, and possessed of characteristics quite different from those we meet with in the writings to which we have referred, is worthless and a mere petitio principii. we can, therefore, appreciate the state of the case when, for instance, we find an able man like credner commencing his inquiry as to who was the author of the fourth gospel, with such words as the following: "were we entirely without historical data regarding the author of the fourth gospel, who is not named in the writing itself, we should still, from internal grounds in the gospel itself--from the nature of the language, from the freshness and perspicacity of the narrative, from the exactness and precision of the statements, from the peculiar.manner of the mention of the baptist and of the sons of zebedee, from the love and fervour rising to ecstacy which the writer manifests towards jesus, from the irresistible charm which is poured out over the whole ideally-composed evangelical history, from the philosophical considerations with which the gospel begins--be led to the result: that the author of such a gospel can only be a native of palestine, can only be a direct eye-witness, can only be an apostle, can { } only be a favourite of jesus, can only be that john whom jesus held captivated to himself by the whole heavenly spell of his teaching, that john who rested on the bosom of jesus, stood beneath his cross, and whose later residence in a city like ephesus proves that philosophical speculation not merely attracted him, but that he also knew how to maintain his place amongst philosophically cultivated greeks."( ) it is almost impossible to proceed further in building up theory upon baseless assumption; but we shall hereafter see that he is kept in countenance by ewald, who outstrips him in the boldness and minuteness of his conjectures. we must now more carefully examine the details of the case. the language in which the gospel is written, as we have already mentioned, is much less hebraic than that of the other gospels, with the exception of parts of the gospel according to luke, and its hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with hellenistic greek, but its composition is distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the gospels. it may be remarked that the connection which credner finds between the language and the apostle john arises out of the supposition, that long residence in ephesus had enabled him to acquire that fecility of composition in the greek language which is one of its characteristics. ewald, who exaggerates the hebraism of the work, resorts nevertheless to the conjecture, which we shall hereafter more fully consider, that the gospel was written from dictation by young friends of john in ephesus, who put the aged apostle's thoughts, in many places, into purer greek as they { } wrote them down.( ) the arbitrary nature of such an explanation, adopted in one shape or another by many apologists, requires no remark, but we shall at every turn meet with similar assumptions advanced to overcome difficulties. now, although there is no certain information as to the time when, if ever, the apostle removed into asia minor, it is at least pretty certain that he did not leave palestine before a.d. .( ) we find him still at jerusalem about a.d. -- , when paul went thither, and he had not at that time any intention of leaving, but, on the contrary, his dedication of himself to the ministry of the circumcision is distinctly mentioned by the apostle.( ) the "unlettered and ignorant" fisherman of galilee, therefore, had obviously attained an age when habits of thought and expression have become fixed, and when a new language cannot without great difficulty be acquired. if we consider the apocalypse to be his work, we find positive evidence of such markedly different thought and language actually existing when the apostle must have been between sixty and seventy years of age, that it is quite impossible to conceive that he could have subsequently acquired the language and mental characteristics of the fourth gospel.( ) it would be perfectly absurd, so far as language goes, to find in the fourth gospel the slightest indication of the apostle john, of whose language we have no information whatever except from the apocalypse, a composition { } which, if accepted as written by the apostle, would at once exclude all consideration of the gospel as his work. there are many circumstances, however, which seem clearly to indicate that the author of the fourth gospel was neither a native of palestine nor a jew, and to some of these we must briefly refer. the philosophical statements with which the gospel commences, it will be admitted, are anything but characteristic of the son of thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of galilee who, to a comparatively advanced period of life, continued preaching in his native country to his brethren of the circumcision. attempts have been made to trace the logos doctrine of the fourth gospel to the purely hebraic source of the old testament, but every impartial mind must perceive that here there is no direct and simple transformation of the theory of wisdom of the proverbs and old testament apocrypha, and no mere development of the later memra of the targums, but a very advanced application to christianity of alexandrian philosophy, with which we have become familiar through the writings of philo, to which reference has so frequently been made. it is quite true that a decided step beyond the doctrine of philo is made when the logos is represented as [------] in the person of jesus, but this argument is equally applicable to the jewish doctrine of wisdom, and that step had already been taken before the composition of the gospel. in the alexandrian philosophy everything was prepared for the final application of the doctrine, and nothing is more clear than the fact that the writer of the fourth gospel was well acquainted with the teaching of the alexandrian school, from which he derived his philosophy, and its elaborate and systematic application to jesus alone indicates a late { } development of christian doctrine, which we maintain could not have been attained by the judaistic son of zebedec.( ) we have already on several occasions referred to the attitude which the writer of the fourth gospel assumes towards the jews. apart from the fact that he places christianity generally in strong antagonism to judaism, as light to darkness, truth to a lie, and presents the doctrine of a hypostatic trinity in the most developed form to be found in the new testament, in striking contrast to the three synoptics, and in contradiction to hebrew monotheism, he writes at all times as one who not only is not a jew himself, but has nothing to do with their laws and customs. he speaks everywhere of the feasts "of the jews," "the passover of the jews," "the manner of the purifying of the jews," "the jews' feast of tabernacles," "as the manner of the jews is to bury," "the jews' preparation day," and so on.( ) the law of moses is spoken of as "your law," "their law," as of a people with which the writer was not connected.( ) moreover, the jews are represented as continually in virulent opposition to jesus, and seeking to kill him; and the word "jew" is the unfailing indication of the enemies of the truth, and the persecutors of the christ.( ) the jews are not once spoken of as the favoured people of god, but they are denounced as "children of the devil," who is "the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning."( ) the author makes caiaphas and the chief most critics agree that the characteristics of the fourth gospel render the supposition that it was the work of an old man untenable. { } priests and pharisees speak of the jewish people not as [------], but as [------], the term employed by the jews to designate the gentiles.( ) we need scarcely point out that the jesus of the fourth gospel is no longer of the race of david, but the son of god. the expectation of the jews that the messiah should be of the seed of david is entirely set aside, and the genealogies of the first and third synoptics tracing his descent are not only ignored, but the whole idea absolutely excluded. then the writer calls annas the high priest, although at the same time caiaphas is represented as holding that office.( ) the expression which he uses is: "caiaphas being the high priest that year"[------]. this statement, made more than once, indicates the belief that the office was merely annual, which is erroneous. josephus states with regard to caiaphas, that he was high priest for ten years from a.d. -- .( ) ewald and others argue that the expression "that year" refers to the year in which the { } death of jesus, so memorable to the writer, took place, and that it does not exclude the possibility of his having been high priest for successive years also.( ) this explanation, however, is quite arbitrary and insufficient, and this is shown by the additional error in representing annas as also high priest at,the same time. the synoptists know nothing of the preliminary examination before annas, and the reason given by the writer of the fourth gospel why the soldiers first took jesus to annas: "for he was father-in-law to caiaphas, who was high priest that same year,"( ) is inadmissible. the assertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and institutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the third gospel and of the acts of the apostles. in luke iii. , the word of god is said to come to john the baptist: "in the high priesthood of annas and caiaphas" [------], and again, in acts iv. , annas is spoken of as the high priest when peter and john healed the lame man at the gate of the temple which was called "beautiful," and caiaphas is mentioned immediately after: "and annas the high priest, and caiaphas, and john, and alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest." such statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of the fourth gospel, may have led to the confusion in the narrative. annas had previously been high priest, as we know from josephus,( ) but nothing is more certain than the fact that the title was not continued after the office was resigned; aud ishmael { } eleazar, and simon, who succeeded annas and separated his term of office from that of caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. the narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed by a native of palestine,( ) and much less by an acquaintance of the high priest.( ) there are also several geographical errors committed which denote a foreigner. in i. , the writer speaks of a "bethany beyond jordan, where john was baptizing." the substitution of "bethabara," mentioned by origen, which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of course repudiated by critics, "bethany" standing in all the older codices. the alteration was evidently proposed to obviate the difficulty that, even in origen's time, there did not exist any trace of a bethany beyond jordan in peræa. the place could not be the bethany near { } jerusalem, and it is supposed that the writer either mistook its position or, inventing a second bethany, which he described as "beyond jordan," displayed an ignorance of the locality improbable either in a jew or a palestinian.( ) again, in iii. , the writer says that "john was baptizing in Ænon, near to salim, because there was much water there." this Ænon near to salim was in judaea, as is clearly stated in the previous verse. the place, however, was quite unknown even in the third century, and the nearest locality which could be indicated as possible was in the north of samaria and, therefore, differing from the statements in iii. , iv. .( ) Ænon, however, signifies "springs," and the question arises whether the writer of the fourth gospel, not knowing the real meaning of the word, did not simply mistake it for the name of a place.( ) in any case, there seems to be here another error into which the author of the fourth gospel, had he been the apostle john, could not have fallen.( ) { } the account of the miracle of the pool of bethesda is a remarkable one for many reasons. the words which most pointedly relate the miraculous phenomena characterizing the pool, are rejected by many critics as an interpolation. in the following extract we put them in italics: v. .--"in these (five porches) lay a multitude of the sick, halt, withered, _waiting for the moving of the water. . for an angel went down at certain seasons into the pool and was troubling the water: he, therefore, who first went in after the troubling of the water was made whole of whatsoever disease he had_." we maintain, however, that the obnoxious passage is no spurious interpolation, but that there is ample evidence, external and internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in the text. it is true that the whole passage is omitted by the sinaitic and vatican codices, and by c: that a( ), l, , and others omit the last phrase of verse , and that d, , which contain that phrase, omit the whole of verse , together with , and some other mss.: that in many codices in which the passage is found it is marked by an asterisk or obelus, and that it presents considerable variation in readings. it is also true that it is omitted by cureton's syriac, by the thebaic, and by most of the memphitic versions. but, on the other hand, it exists in the alexandrian codex, c , e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, it, v, r, a and other mss( ), and it forms part of the peschito, jerusalem syriac, vulgate, watkin's memphitic, Æthiopic and armenian versions.( ) { } more important still is the fact that it existed in the ancient latin version of tertillian, who refers to the passage;( ) and it is quoted by didymus, chrysostom, cyril, ambrose, theophylact, euthymius, and other fathers. its presence in the alexandrian codex alone might not compensate for the omission of the passage by the sinaitic and vatican codices and c, d, but when the alexandrian ms. is supported by the version used by tertullian, which is a couple of centuries older than any of the other authorities, as well as by the peschito, not to mention other codices, the balance of external evidence is distinctly in its favour. the internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authenticity of the passage. it is true that there are a considerable number of [------] in the few lines: [------] and perhaps [------]; but it must be remembered that the phenomena described are exceptional, and may well explain exceptional phraseology. on the other hand, [------] is specially a johannine word, used v. and six times more in the fourth gospel, but only five times in the rest of the new testament; and [------] with [------] occurs in v. , , , , and with [------] in v. , , vii. and nowhere else. [------] also may be indicated as employed in v. , and five times more in other parts of the gospel, and only eleven times in the rest of the new testament, and the use of [------] in v. is thus perhaps naturally { } accounted for. the context, however, forbids the removal of this passage. it is in the highest degree improbable that verse could have ended with "withered" [------], and although many critics wish to retain the last phrase in verse , in order to explain verse , this only shows the necessity, without justifying the arbitrary maintenance, of these words, whilst verse , which is still better attested, is excluded to get rid of the inconvenient angel. it is evident, however, that the expression: "when the water was troubled" [------] of the undoubted verse is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel "was troubling the water," [------] of verse , and also that the statement of the verse , "but while i am coming, another goeth down before me" [------] absolutely requires the account: "he, therefore, who first went in &c." [------] of verse . the argument that the interpolation was made to explain the statement in verse is untenable, for that statement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under discussion, and cannot be severed from it. even if the information that the water was "troubled" at certain seasons only could have been dispensed with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of healing, given in verse , is indispensable to the appreciation of the lame man's complaint in verse , for without knowing that priority was essential, the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. it is also argued, that the passage about the angel may have been interpolated to bring out^the presence of supernatural agency, but it is much more reasonable to believe that attempts have been made to omit these verses, of which there is such ancient attestation, in order to eliminate an embarrassing excess of { } supernatural agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the fact, for which even tertullian( ) endeavoured to account, that the supposed pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. this natural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which apologists at the present day abandon the obnoxious passage.( ) the combined force of the external and internal evidence, however, cannot, we think, be fairly resisted.( ) now, not only is the pool of bethesda totally unknown at the present day, but although possessed of such miraculous properties, it was not known even to josephus, or any other writer of that time. it is inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have been unknown and unmentioned by the jewish historian.( ) there is here evidently neither the narrative of an apostle nor of an eye-witness. another very significant mistake occurs in the account of the conversation with the samaritan woman, which is said to have taken place (iv. ) near "a city of samaria "the biblical critic is glad that he can remove these words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain them."--rev. h. w. watkins, m.a., in "a new test. commentary for english readers," edited by charles john ellicott, d.d., lord bishop of gloucester and bristol, i. p. . { } which is called sychar." it is evident that there was no such place--and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty. the common conjecture has been that the town of sichem is intended, but this is rightly rejected by delitzsch,( ) and ewald.( ) credner,( ) not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular by the theory of ewald, conjectures that sychar is a corruption of sichem, introduced into the gospel by a greek secretary to whom this part of the gospel was dictated, and who mistook the apostle's pronunciation of the final syllable. we constantly meet with this elastic explanation of difficulties in the gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the explanation. hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious earnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of sichem, and that, by so slight a change in the pronunciation, the apostle called the place a city of lies [------] a lie), a play upon words which he does not consider unworthy.( ) the only support which this latter theory can secure from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that the whole discourse with the woman is ideal. hengstenberg( ) conjectures that the five husbands of the woman are typical of the gods of the five nations with which the king of assyria peopled samaria, ii. kings, xvii. -- , and which they worshipped instead of the god of israel, and as the actual god of the samaritans was not recognized as the true god by the jews, nor their { } worship of him on mount gerizim held to be valid, he considers that under the name of the city of sychar, their whole religion, past and present, was denounced as a lie. there can be little doubt that the episode is allegorical, but such a defence of the geographical error, the reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is quite insufficient on the one hand, effectually destroys the historical character of the gospel on the other.( ) the inferences from all of the foregoing examples are strengthened by the fact that, in the quotations from the old testament, the fourth gospel in the main follows the septuagint version, or shows its influence, and nowhere can be shown directly to translate from the hebrew. these instances might be multiplied, but we must proceed to examine more closely the indications given in the gospel as to the identity of its author. we need not point out that the writer nowhere clearly states who he is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are frequently used which evidently show the desire that a particular person should be understood. he generally calls himself "the other disciple," or "the disciple whom jesus loved."( ) it is universally understood that he { } represents himself as having previously been a disciple of john the baptist (i. ff.),( ) and also that he is "the other disciple" who was acquainted with the high priest (xviii. , ),( ) if not an actual relative as ewald and others assert.( ) the assumption that the disciple thus indicated is john, rests principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming john, and also that he never distinguishes john the baptist by the appellation [------], whilst he carefully distinguishes the two disciples of the name of judas, and always speaks of the apostle peter as "simon peter," or "peter," but rarely as "simon" only.( ) without pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it is obvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to be john the son of zebedee, the fourth gospel gives a representation of him quite different from the synoptics and other writings. in the fourth gospel (i. ff.) the calling of the apostle is described in a peculiar manner. john (the baptist) is standing with two of his disciples, and points out jesus to them as "the lamb of god," whereupon the two disciples follow jesus and, finding out where he lives, { } abide with him that day and subsequently attach themselves to his person. in verse it is stated: "one of the two which heard john speak, and followed him, was andrew, simon peter's brother." we are left to imagine who was the other, and the answer of critics is: john. now, the "calling" of john is related in a totally different manner in the synoptics--jesus, walking by the sea of galilee, sees "two brethren, simon called peter and andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers, and he saith unto them: follow me, and i will make you fishers of men. and they straightway left their nets and followed him. and when he had gone from thence, he saw other two brethren, james the son of zebedee and john his brother, in the ship with zebedee their father mending their nets; and he called them. and they immediately left the ship and their father and followed him."( ) these accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and both cannot be true. we see, from the first introduction of "the other disciple" on the scene, in the fourth gospel, the evident design to give him the precedence before peter and the rest of the apostles. we have above given the account of the first two synoptists of the calling of peter, according to which he is the first of the disciples who is selected, and he is directly invited by jesus to follow him and become, with his brother andrew, "fishers of men." james and john are not called till later in the day, and without the record of any special address. in the third gospel, the calling of peter is introduced with still more important details. jesus enters the boat of simon and bids him push out into the lake and let down his net, and the miraculous draught of fishes is taken: "when simon peter { } saw it, he fell down at jesus' knees, saying: depart from me, for i am a sinful man, o lord. for he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of fishes which they had taken." the calling of the sons of zebedee becomes even less important here, for the account simply continues: "and so was also james and john, the sons of zebedee, who were partners with simon." jesus then addresses his invitation to simon, and the account concludes: "and when they had brought their boats to land, they forsook all, and followed him."( ) in the fourth gospel, the calling of the two disciples of john is first narrated, as we have seen and the first call of peter is from his brother andrew, and not from jesus himself. "he (andrew) first findeth his own brother simon, and saith unto him: we have found the messias (which is, being interpreted, christ), and he brought him to jesus. jesus looked on him and said: thou art simon, the son of jonas;( ) thou shalt be called cephas (which is by interpretation, peter)."( ) this explanation of the manner in which the cognomen peter is given, we need not point out, is likewise contradictory to the synoptics, and betrays the same purpose of suppressing the prominence of peter. the fourth gospel states that "the other disciple," who is declared to be john, the author of the gospel, was known to the high priest, another trait amongst many others elevating him above the son of zebedee as he is depicted elsewhere in the new testament. the { } account which the fourth gospel gives of the trial of jesus is in very many important particulars at variance with that of the synoptics. we need only mention here the point that the latter know nothing of the preliminary examination by annas. we shall not discuss the question as to where the denial of peter is represented as taking place in the fourth gospel, but may merely say that no other disciple but peter is mentioned in the synoptics as having followed jesus; and peter enters without difficulty into the high priest's palace.( ) in the fourth gospel, peter is made to wait without at the door until john, who is a friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains permission for peter to go in, another instance of the precedence which is systematically given to john. the synoptics do not in this particular case give any support to the statement in the fourth gospel, and certainly in nothing that is said of john elsewhere do they render his acquaintance with the high priest in the least degree probable. it is, on the contrary, improbable in the extreme that the young fisherman of galilee, who shows very little enlightenment in the anecdotes told of him in the synoptics, and who is described as an "unlettered and ignorant" man in the acts of the apostles, could have any acquaintance with the high priest. ewald, who, on the strength of the word [------],( ) at once elevates him into a relation of the high priest, sees in the statement of polycrates that late in life he wore the priestly [------], a confirmation of the supposition that he was of the high priest's race and family.( ) the { } evident judaistic tendency, however, which made john wear the priestly mitre may distinguish him as author of the apocalypse, but it is fatal to the theory which makes him author of the fourth gospel, in which there is so complete a severance from judaism. a much more important point, however, is the designation of the author of the fourth gospel, who is identified with the apostle john, as "the disciple whom jesus loved." it is scarcely too much to say, that this suggestive appellation alone has done more than any arguments to ensure the recognition of the work, and to overcome doubts as to its authenticity. religious sentimentality, evoked by the influence of this tender epithet, has been blind to historical incongruities, and has been willing to accept with little question from the "beloved disciple" a portrait of jesus totally unlike that of the synoptics, and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the one over the sublime morality and simple eloquence of the other. it is impossible to reflect seriously upon this representation of the relations between one of the disciples and jesus without the conviction that every record of the life of the great teacher must have borne distinct traces of the preference, and that the disciple so honoured must have attracted the notice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. if we seek for any evidence, however, that john was distinguished with such special affection,--that he lay on the breast of jesus at supper--that even the apostle peter recognised his superior intimacy and influence( )--and that he received at the foot of the cross the care of his mother from the dying jesus,( )--we seek in vain. the synoptic gospels, which minutely record the details { } of the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from reporting any such circumstances or such distinction of john, do not even mention his name, and peter everywhere has precedence before the sons of zebedee. almost the only occasions upon which any prominence is given to them are episodes in which they incur the master's displeasure, and the cognomen of "sons of thunder" has certainly no suggestion in it of special affection, nor of personal qualities likely to attract the great teacher. the selfish ambition of the brothers who desire to sit on thrones on his right and on his left, and the intolerant temper which would have called down fire from heaven to consume a samaritan village, much rather contradict than support the representation of the fourth gospel. upon one occasion, indeed, jesus in rebuking them, adds: "ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of."( ) it is perfectly undeniable that john nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the synoptics as this designation in the fourth gospel implies. in the lists of the disciples he is always put in the fourth place,( ) and in the first two gospels his only distinguishing designation is that of "the brother of james," or one of the sons of zebedee. the apostle peter in all of the synoptics is the leader of the disciples. he it is who alone is represented as the mouth-piece of the twelve or as holding conversation with jesus; and the only occasions on which the sons of zebedee address jesus are those to which we have referred, upon which luke ix. . these words are omitted from some of the oldest mss., but they are in cod. d (bezae) and many other very important texts, as well as in some of the oldest torsions, besides being quoted by the fathers. they were probably omitted after the claim of john to be the "beloved disciple" became admitted. { } his displeasure was incurred. the angel who appears to the women after the resurrection desires them to tell his disciples "and peter" that jesus will meet them in galilee,( ) but there is no message for any "disciple whom he loved." if peter, james, and john accompany the master to the mount of transfiguration, and are witnesses of his agony in the garden, regarding which, however, the fourth gospel is totally silent, the two brethren remain in the back ground, and peter alone acts a prominent part. if we turn to the epistles of paul, we do not find a single trace of acquaintance with the fact that jesus honoured john with any special affection, and the opportunity of referring to such a distinction was not wanting when he writes to the galatians of his visit to the "pillar" apostles in jerusalem. here again, however, we find no prominence given to john, but the contrary, his name still being mentioned last and without any special comment. in none of the pauline or other epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any disciple whom jesus specially loved. the apocalypse, which, if any book of the new testament can be traced to him, must be ascribed to the apostle john, makes no claim whatever to such a distinction. in none of the apocryphal gospels is there the slightest indication of knowledge of the fact, and if we come to the fathers even, it is a striking circumstance that there is not a trace of it in any early work, and not the most remote indication of any independent tradition that jesus distinguished john or any other individual disciple with peculiar friendship. the roman clement, in referring to the example of the apostles, only mentions peter and paul.( ) polycarp, who is described as a disciple of the { } apostle john, apparently knows nothing of his having been especially loved by jesus. pseudo-ignatius does not refer to him at all in the syriac epistles, or in either version of the seven epistles.( ) papias, in describing his interest in hearing what the apostles said, gives john no prominence: "i inquired minutely after the words of the presbyters: what andrew, or what peter said, or what philip or what thomas or james, or what john or matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the lord, and what aristion and the presbyter john, the disciples of the lord, say,"( ) &c. as a fact, it is undenied and undeniable that the representation of john, or of any other disciple, as specially beloved by jesus, is limited solely and entirely to the fourth gospel, and that there is not even a trace of independent tradition to support the claim, whilst on the other hand the total silence of the earlier gospels and of the other new testament writings on the point, and indeed their data of a positive and unmistakeable character, oppose rather than support the correctness of the later and mere personal assertion. those who abandon sober criticism, and indulge in mere sentimental rhapsodies on the impossibility of the author of the fourth gospel being any other than "the disciple whom jesus loved," strangely ignore the fact that we have no reason whatever, except the assurance of the author himself, to believe that jesus specially loved any disciple, and much less john the son of zebedee. indeed, the statements of the fourth gospel itself on the subject are indeed in the universally repudiated epistles, beyond the fact that two are addressed to john, in which he is not called "the disciple whom jesus loved," the only mention of him is the statement, "john was banished to patmos." ad tars., iii. { } so indirect and intentionally vague that it is not absolutely clear what disciple is indicated as "the beloved," and it has even been maintained that not john the son of zebedee, but andrew the brother of simon peter was "the disciple whom jesus loved," and consequently the supposed author of the fourth gospel.( ) we have hitherto refrained from referring to one of the most singular features of the fourth gospel, the chapter xxi., which is by many cited as the most ancient testimony for the authenticity of the work, and which requires particular consideration. it is obvious that the gospel is brought to a conclusion by verses , of chapter xx., and critics are universally agreed at least that, whoever may be its author, chapter xxi. is a supplement only added after an interval. by whom was it written? as may be supposed, critics have given very different replies to this important question. many affirm, and with much probability, that chapter xxi. was subsequently added to the gospel by the author himself.( ) a few, however, exclude the last two verses, which they consider to have been added by another hand.( ) a much larger number assert that the whole { } chapter is an ancient appendix to the gospel by a writer who was not the author of the gospel.( ) a few likewise reject the last two verses of the preceding chapter. in this supplement (v. ), "the disciple whom jesus loved, who also leaned on his breast at the supper and said: lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?" is (v. ) identified with the author of the gospel. we may here state the theory of ewald with regard to the composition of the fourth gospel, which is largely deduced from considerations connected with the last chapter, and which, although more audaciously minute in its positive and arbitrary statement of details than any other with which we are acquainted, introduces more or less the explanations generally given regarding the composition of chapter xxi. out of all the indications in the work, ewald decides: " . that the gospel, completed at the end of chapter xx., was composed by the apostle about the year , with the free help of friends, not to be immediately circulated { } throughout the world, but to remain limited to the narrower circle of friends until his death, and only then to be published as his legacy to the whole of christendom. in this position it remained ten years, or even longer. . as the preconceived opinion regarding the life or death of the apostle (xxi. ) had perniciously spread itself throughout the whole of christendom, the apostle himself decided, even before his death, to counteract it in the right way by giving a correct statement of the circumstances. the same friends, therefore, assisted him to design the very important supplement, chapter xxi., and this could still be very easily added, as the book was not yet published. his friends proceeded, nevertheless, somewhat more freely in its composition than previously in writing the book itself, and allowed their own hand more clearly to gleam through, although here, as in the rest of the work, they conformed to the will of the apostle, and did not, even in the supplement, openly declare his name as the author. as the supplement, however, was to form a closely connected part of the whole work, they gave at its end (verses f.), as it now seemed to them suitable, a new conclusion to the augmented work. . as the apostle himself desired that the preconceived opinion regarding him, which had been spread abroad to the prejudice of christendom, should be contradicted as soon as possible, and even before his death, he now so far departed from his earlier wish, that he permitted the circulation of his gospel before his death. we can accept this with all certainty, and have therein trustworthy testimony regarding the whole original history of our book. . when the gospel was thus published it was for { } the first time gradually named after our apostle, even in its external superscription: a nomination which had then become all the more necessary and permanent for the purpose of distinction, as it was united in one whole with the other gospels. the world, however, has at all times known it only under this wholly right title, and could in no way otherwise know it and otherwise name it."( ) in addressing ourselves to each of these points in detail, we shall be able to discuss the principal questions connected with the fourth gospel. the theory of ewald, that the fourth gospel was written down with the assistance of friends in ephesus, has been imagined solely to conciliate certain phenomena presented throughout the gospel, and notably in the last chapter, with the foregone conclusion that it was written by the apostle john. it is apparent that there is not a single word in the work itself explaining such a mode of composition, and that the hypothesis proceeds purely from the ingenious imagination of the critic. the character of the language, the manner in which the writer is indirectly indicated in the third person, and the reference, even in the body of the work (xix. ), to the testimony of a third person, combined with the similarity of the style of the supplementary chapter, which is an obvious addition intended, however, to be understood as written by a different hand, have rendered these conjectures necessary to reconcile such obvious incongruities with the ascription of the work to the apostle. the substantial identity of the style and vocabulary of chapter xxi. with the rest of the gospel is asserted by a multitude of the most competent critics. ewald, whilst he recognizes the great { } similarity, maintains at the same time a real dissimilarity, for which he accounts in the manner just quoted. the language, ewald admits, agrees fully in many rare _nuances_ with that of the rest of the gospel, but he does not take the trouble to prove the decided dissimilarities which, he asserts, likewise exist. a less difference than that which he finds might, he thinks, be explained by the interval which had elapsed between the writing of the work and of the supplement, but "the wonderful similarity, in the midst of even greater dissimilarity, of the whole tone and particularly of the style of the composition is not thereby accounted for. this, therefore, leads us," he continues, "to the opinion: the apostle made use, for writing down his words, of the hand and even of the skill of a trusted friend who later, on his own authority (fur sich allein), wrote the supplement. the great similarity, as well as dissimilarity, of the style of both parts in this way becomes intelligible: the trusted friend (probably a presbyter in ephesus) adopted much of the language and mode of expression of the youthful old apostle, without, however, where he wrote more in his own person, being carefully solicitous of imitating them. but even through this contrast, and the definite declaration in v. , the apostolical origin of the book itself becomes all the more clearly apparent; and thus the supplement proves from the most diverse sides how certainly this gospel was written by the trusted disciple."( ) elsewhere, ewald more clearly explains the share in the work which he assigns to the apostle's disciple: "the proposition that the apostle composed in a unique way our likewise unique gospel is to be understood only with the { } important limitation upon which i have always laid so much stress: for john himself did not compose this work quite so directly as paul did most of his epistles, but the young friend who wrote it down from his lips, and who, in the later appendix, chapter xxi., comes forward in the most open way, without desiring in the slightest to conceal his separate identity, does his work at other times somewhat freely, in that he never introduces the narrator speaking of himself and his participation in the events with 'i' or 'we' but only indirectly indicates his presence at such events and, towards the end, in preference refers to him, from his altogether peculiar relation to christ, as 'the disciple whom the lord loved,' so that, in one passage, in regard to an important historical testimony (xix. ), he even speaks of him as of a third person." ewald then maintains that the agreement between the gospel and the epistles, and more especially the first, which he affirms, without vouchsafing a word of evidence, to have been written down by a different hand, proves that we have substantially only the apostle's very peculiar composition, and that his friend as much as possible gave his own words.( ) it is obvious from this elaborate explanation, which we need scarcely say is composed of mere assumptions, that, in order to connect the apostle john with the gospel, ewald is obliged to assign him a very peculiar position in regard to it: he recognizes that some of the characteristics of the work exclude the supposition that the apostle could himself have written the gospel, so he represents him as dictating it, and his secretary as taking considerable liberties with the composition as he writes it { } down, and even as introducing references of his own; as, for instance, in the passage to which he refers, where, in regard to the statement that at the crucifixion a soldier pierced the side of the already dead jesus and that forthwith there came out blood and water (xix. ), it is said: "and he that saw it hath borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe."( ) it is perfectly clear that the writer refers to the testimony of another person( )--the friend who is writing down the narrative, says herr ewald, refers to the apostle who is actually dictating it. again, in the last chapter, as elsewhere throughout the work, "the disciple whom jesus loved," who is the author, is spoken of in the third person, and also in verse : "this is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things" [------]. this, according to ewald, is the same secretary, now writing in his own person. the similarity between this declaration and the appeal to the testimony of another person in xix. , is certainly complete, and there can be no doubt that both proceed from the same pen; but beyond the assertion of herr ewald there is not the slightest evidence that a secretary wrote the gospel from the dictation of another, and ventured to interrupt the narrative by such a reference to testimony, which, upon the supposition that the { } apostle john was known as the actual author, is singularly out of place. if john wrote the gospel, why should he appeal in utterly vague terms to his own testimony, and upon such a point, when the mere fact that he himself wrote the statement was the most direct testimony in itself? an author who composed a work which he desired to ascribe to a "disciple whom jesus loved" might have made such a reference as xix. , in his anxiety to support such an affirmation, without supposing that he had really compromised his design, and might have naturally added such a statement as that in the last two verses, but nothing but the foregone conclusion that the apostle john was the real author could have suggested such an explanation of these passages. it is throughout assumed by ewald and others, that john wrote in the first instance, at least, specially for a narrow circle of friends, and the proof of this is considered to be the statement of the object with which it was written: "that ye may believe,"(l) &c., a phrase, we may remark, which is identical with that of the very verse (xix. ) with which the secretary is supposed to have had so much to do. it is very remarkable, upon this hypothesis, that in xix. , it is considered necessary even for this narrow circle, who knew the apostle so well, to make such an appeal, as well as to attach at its close (xxi. ), for the benefit of the world in general as ewald will have it, a certificate of the trustworthiness of the gospel upon no hypothesis which supposes the apostle john the author of the fourth gospel is such an explanation credible. that the apostle himself could have written of himself the words in xix. is impossible. after { } having stated so much that is much more surprising and contradictory to all experience without reference to any witness, it would indeed have been strange had he here appealed to himself as to a separate individual, and on the other hand it is quite inadmissible to assume that a mend to whom he is dictating should interrupt the narrative to introduce a passage so inappropriate to the work, and so unnecessary for any circle acquainted with the apostolic author. if, as ewald argues, the peculiarities of his style of composition were so well known that it was unnecessary for the writer more clearly to designate himself either for the first readers or for the christian world, the passages we are discussing are all the more inappropriate. that any guarantee of the truth of the gospel should have been thought desirable for readers who knew the work is to be composed by the apostle john, and who believed him to be "the disciple whom jesus loved," is inconceivable, and that any anonymous and quite indirect testimony to its genuineness should either have been considered necessary or of any value is still more incredible. it is impossible that nameless presbyters of ephesus could venture to accredit a gospel written by the apostle john; and any intended attestation must have taken the simple and direct course of stating that the work had been composed by the apostle. the peculiarities we are discussing seem to us explicable only upon the supposition that the unknown writer of the gospel desired that it should be understood to be written by a certain disciple whom jesus loved, but did not choose distinctly to name him or directly to make such an affirmation. it is, we assert, impossible that an apostle who composed a history of the life and teaching of jesus could { } have failed to attach his name, naturally and simply, as testimony of the trustworthiness of his statements, and of his fitness as an eye-witness to compose such a record. as the writer of the fourth gospel does not state his name, herr ewald ascribes the omission to the "incomparable modesty and delicacy of feeling" of the apostle john. we must further briefly examine the validity of this explanation. it is universally admitted, and by ewald himself, that although the writer does not directly name himself, he very clearly indicates that he is "the other disciple" and "the disciple whom jesus loved." we must affirm that such a mode of indicating himself is incomparably less modest than the simple statement of his name, and it is indeed a glorification of himself beyond anything in the apocalypse. but not only is the explanation thus discredited but, in comparing the details of the gospel with those of the synoptics, we find still more certainly how little modesty had to do with the suppression of his name. in the synoptics a very marked precedence of the rest of the disciples is ascribed to the apostle peter; and the sons of zebedee are represented in all of them as holding a subordinate place. this representation is confirmed by the pauline epistles and by tradition. in the fourth gospel, a very different account is given, and the author studiously elevates the apostle john,--that is to say, according to the theory that he is the writer of the gospel, himself,--in every way above the apostle peter. apart from the general pre-eminence claimed for himself in the very name of "the disciple whom jesus loved," we have seen that he deprives peter in his own favour of the honour of being the first of the disciples who was called; he suppresses the account of the circumstances under which { } that apostle was named peter, and gives another and trifling version of the incident, reporting elsewhere indeed in a very subdued and modified form, and without the commendation of the master, the recognition of the divinity of jesus, which in the first gospel is the cause of his change of name.( ) he is the intimate friend of the master, and even peter has to beg him to ask at the supper who was the betrayer. he describes himself as the friend of the high priest, and while peter is excluded, he not only is able to enter into his palace, but he is the means of introducing peter. the denial of peter is given without mitigation, but his bitter repentance is not mentioned. he it is who is singled out by the dying jesus and entrusted with the charge of his mother. he outruns peter in their race to the sepulchre, and in the final appearance of jesus (xxi. ) the more important position is assigned to the disciple whom jesus loved. it is, therefore, absurd to speak of the incomparable modesty of the writer, who, if he does not give his name, not only clearly indicates himself, but throughout assumes a pre-eminence which is not supported by the authority of the synoptics and other writings, but is heard of alone from his own narrative. ewald argues that chapter xxi. must have been written, and the gospel as we have it, therefore, have been completed, before the death of the apostle john. he considers the supplement to have been added specially to contradict the report regarding john (xxi. ). "the supplement must have been written whilst john still lived," he asserts, "for only before his death was it worth while to contradict such a false hope; and if his death had actually taken place, the result itself would { } have already refuted so erroneous an interpretation of the words of christ, and it would then have been much more appropriate to explain afresh the sense of the words 'till i come.' moreover, there is no reference here to the death as having already occurred, although a small addition to that effect in ver. would have been so easy. but if we were to suppose that john had long been dead when this was written, the whole rectification as it is given would be utterly without sense."( ) on the contrary, we affirm that the whole history of the first two centuries renders it certain that the apostle was already dead, and that the explanation was not a rectification of false hopes during his lifetime, but an explanation of the failure of expectations which had already taken place, and probably excited some scandal. we know how the early church looked for the immediate coming of the glorified christ, and how such hopes sustained persecuted christians in their sorrow and suffering. this is very clearly expressed in thess. iv. -- , where the expectation of the second coming within the lifetime of the writer and readers of the epistle is confidently stated, and elsewhere, and even in john ii. , the belief that the "last times" had arrived is expressed. the history of the apocalypse in relation to the canon illustrates the case. so long as the belief in the early consummation of all things continued strong, the apocalypse was the favourite writing of the early church, but when time went on, and the second coming of christ did not take place, the opinion of christendom regarding the work changed, and disappointment, as well as the desire to explain the non-fulfilment of prophecies upon which so much hope had been based, led many to reject the apocalypse { } as an unintelligible and fallacious book. we venture to conjecture that the tradition that john should not die until the second coming of jesus may have originated with the apocalypse, where that event is announced to john as immediately to take place, xxii. , , , and the words with which the book ends are of this nature, and express the expectation of the writer, : "he which testifieth these things saith: surely i come quickly. amen. come, lord jesus." it was not in the spirit of the age to hesitate about such anticipations, and so long as the apostle lived, such a tradition would scarcely have required or received contradiction from any one, the belief being universal that the coming of jesus might take place any day, and assuredly would not be long delayed. when the apostle was dead, however, and the tradition that it had been foretold that he should live until the coming of the lord exercised men's minds, and doubt and disappointment at the non-fulfilment of what may have been regarded as prophecy produced a prejudicial effect upon christendom, it seemed to the writer of this gospel a desirable thing to point out that too much stress had been laid upon the tradition, and that the words which had been relied upon in the first instance did not justify the expectations which had been formed from them. this also contradicts the hypothesis that the apostle john was the author of the gospel. such a passage as xix. , received in any natural sense, or interpreted in any way which can be supported by evidence, shows that the writer of the gospel was not an eye-witness of the events recorded, but appeals to the testimony of others. it is generally admitted that the expressions in ch. i. are of universal application, and capable of being adopted by all christians, and, { } consequently, that they do not imply any direct claim on the part of the writer to personal knowledge of jesus. we must now examine whether the gospel itself bears special marks of having been written by an eye-witness, and how far in this respect it bears out the assertion that it was written by the apostle john. it is constantly asserted that the minuteness of the details in the fourth gospel indicates that it must have been written by one who was present at the scenes he records. with regard to this point we need only generally remark, that in the works of imagination of which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is recognized by all, we have the most minute and natural details of scenes which never occurred, and of conversations which never took place, the actors in which never actually existed. ewald admits that it is undeniable that the fourth gospel was written with a fixed purpose, and with artistic design and, indeed, he goes further and recognizes that the apostle could not possibly so long have recollected the discourses of jesus and verbally reproduced them, so that, in fact, we have only, at best, a substantial report of the matter of those discourses coloured by the mind of the author himself.( ) details of scenes at which we were not present may be admirably supplied by imagination, and as we cannot compare what is here described as taking place with what actually took place, the argument that the author must have been an eyewitness because he gives such details is without validity. moreover, the details of the fourth gospel in many cases do not agree with those of the three synoptics, and it is an undoubted fact that the author of the fourth gospel gives the details of scenes at which the apostle john was not { } present, and reports the discourses and conversations on such occasions, with the very same minuteness as those at which he is said to have been present; as, for instance, the interview between jesus and the woman of samaria. it is perfectly undeniable that the writer had other gospels before him when he composed his work, and that he made use of other materials than his own.( ) it is by no means difficult, however, to point out very clear indications that the author was not an eye-witness, but constructed his scenes and discourses artistically and for effect. we shall not, at present, dwell upon the almost uniform artifice adopted in most of the dialogues, in which the listeners either misunderstand altogether the words of jesus, or interpret them in a foolish and material way, and thus afford him an opportunity of enlarging upon the theme. for instance, nicodemus, a ruler of the jews, misunderstands the expression of jesus, that in order to see the kingdom of god a man must be born from above, and asks: "how can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?"( ) now, as it is well known, and as we have already shown, the common expression used in regard to a proselyte to judaism was that of being born again, with which every jew, and more especially every "ruler of the jews," must have been well acquainted. the stupidity which he displays { } in his conversation with jesus, and with which the author endowed all who came in contact with him, in order, by the contrast, to mark more strongly the superiority of the master, even draws from jesus the remark: "art thou the teacher of israel and understandest not these things?"(l) there can be no doubt that the scene was ideal, and it is scarcely possible that a jew could have written it. in the synoptics, jesus is reported as quoting against the people of his own city, nazareth, who rejected him, the proverb: "a prophet has no honour in his own country."( ) the appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. the author of the fourth gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither an eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when he introduces this proverb in a different place. jesus is represented as staying two days at sychar after his conversation with the samaritan woman. "now after the two days he departed thence into galilee. for [------] jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. when, therefore [------], he came into galilee, the galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did in jerusalem, at the feast--for they also went unto the feast."( ) now it is manifest that the quotation here is quite out of place, and none of the ingenious but untenable explanations of apologists can make it appropriate. he is made to go into galilee, which was his country, because a prophet has no honour in his country, and the galilaeans are represented as receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb. the writer evidently misunderstood the facts of the case or { } deliberately desired to deny the connection of jesus with nazareth and galilee, in accordance with his evident intention of associating the logos only with the holy city. we must not pause to show that the author is generally unjust to the galilaeans, and displays an ignorance regarding them very unlike what we should expect from the fisherman of galilee.( ) we have already alluded to the artificial character of the conversation with the woman of samaria, which, although given with so much detail, occurred at a place totally unknown (perhaps allegorically called the "city of lies"), at which the apostle john was not present, and the substance of which was typical of samaria and its five nations and false gods. the continuation in the gospel is as unreal as the conversation. another instance displaying personal ignorance is the insertion into a discourse at the last supper, and without any appropriate connection with the context, the passage "verily, verily, i say unto you: he that receiveth whomsoever i send, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."( ) in the synoptics, this sentence is naturally represented as part of the address to the disciples who are to be sent forth to preach the gospel;( ) but it is clear that its insertion here is a mistake.( ) again, a very obvious slip, which betrays that what was intended for realistic detail is nothing but a reminiscence of some earlier gospel misapplied, occurs in a later part { } of the discourses very inappropriately introduced as being delivered on the same occasion. at the end of xiv. , jesus is represented, after saying that he would no more talk much with the disciples, as suddenly breaking off with the words: "arise, let us go hence" [------]. they do not, however, arise and go thence, but, on the contrary, jesus at once commences another long discourse: "i am the true vine," &c. the expression is merely introduced artistically to close one discourse, and enable the writer to begin another, and the idea is taken from some earlier work. for instance, in our first synoptic, at the close of the agony in the garden which the fourth gospel ignores altogether, jesus says to the awakened disciples: "rise, let us go" [------].( ) we need not go on with these illustrations, but the fact that the author is not an eyewitness recording scenes which he beheld and discourses which he heard, but a writer composing an ideal gospel on a fixed plan, will become more palpable as we proceed. it is not necessary to enter upon any argument to prove the fundamental difference which exists in every respect between the synoptics and the fourth gospel. this is admitted even by apologists, whose efforts to reconcile the discordant elements are totally unsuccessful. "it is impossible to pass from the synoptic gospels to that of st john," says canon westcott, "without feeling that the transition involves the passage from one world of thought to another. no familiarity with the general teaching of the gospels, no wide conception of the character of the saviour is sufficient to destroy the { } contrast which exists in form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives."(l) the difference between the fourth gospel and the synoptics, not only as regards the teaching of jesus but also the facts of the narrative, is so great that it is impossible to harmonize them, and no one who seriously considers the matter can fail to see that both cannot be accepted as correct. if we believe that the synoptics give a truthful representation of the life and teaching of jesus, it follows of necessity that, in whatever category we may decide to place the fourth gospel, it must be rejected as a historical work. the theories which are most in favour as regards it may place the gospel in a high position as an ideal composition, but sober criticism must infallibly pronounce that they exclude it altogether from the province of history. there is no option but to accept it as the only genuine report of the sayings and doings of jesus, rejecting the synoptics, or to remove it at once to another department of literature. the synoptics certainly contradict each other in many minor details, but they are not in fundamental disagreement with each other and evidently present the same portrait of jesus, and the same view of his teaching derived from the same sources. the vast difference which exists between the representation of jesus in the fourth gospel and in the synoptics is too well recognized to require minute demonstration. we must, however, point out some of the distinctive features. we need not do more here than refer to the fact that, whilst the synoptics relate the circumstances of the birth of jesus, two of them at least, and give some history of his family and origin, the fourth gospel, ignoring all this, introduces the great { } teacher at once as the logos who from the beginning was with god and was himself god. the key-note is struck from the first, and in the philosophical prelude to the gospel we have the announcement to those who have ears to hear, that here we need expect no simple history, but an artistic demonstration of the philosophical postulate. according to the synoptics, jesus is baptized by john, and as he goes out of the water the holy ghost descends upon him like a dove. the fourth gospel says nothing of the baptism, and makes john the baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the holy ghost descend like a dove and rest upon jesus, as a sign previously indicated to him by god by which to recognize the lamb of god.( ) from the very first, john the baptist, in the fourth gospel, recognizes and declares jesus to be "the christ,"( ) "the lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world."( ) according to the synoptics, john comes preaching the baptism of repentance, and so far is he from making such declarations, or forming such distinct opinions concerning jesus, that even after he has been cast into prison and just before his death,--when in fact his preaching was at an end,--he is represented as sending disciples to jesus, on hearing in prison of his works, to ask him: "art thou he that should come, or look we for another?" ( ) jesus carries on his ministry and baptizes simultaneously with john, according to the fourth gospel, but his public career, according to the synoptics, does not begin until after the baptist's has concluded, and john is cast into prison.( ) the synoptics clearly { } represent the ministry of jesus as having been limited to a single year,( ) and his preaching is confined to galilee and jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal passover. the fourth gospel distributes the teaching of jesus-between galilee, samaria, and jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and refers to three passovers spent by jesus at jerusalem.( ) the fathers felt this difficulty and expended a good deal of apologetic ingenuity upon it; but no one is now content with the explanation of eusebius, that the synoptics merely intended to write the history of jesus during the one year after the imprisonment of the baptist, whilst the fourth evangelist recounted the events of the time not recorded by the others, a theory which is totally contradicted by the four gospels themselves.( ) the fourth gospel represents the expulsion of the money-changers by jesus as taking place at the very outset of his career,( ) when he could not have been known, and when such a proceeding is incredible; whilst the synoptics place it at the very close of his ministry, after his triumphal entry into jerusalem, when, if ever, such an act, which might have contributed to the final catastrophe, becomes conceivable.( ) the variation from the parallels in the synoptics, moreover, is exceedingly instructive, and further indicates the amplification of a later writer imperfectly acquainted with the circumstances. the { } first and second synoptists, in addition to the general expression "those buying and selling in the temple," mention only that jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. the third synoptist does not even give these particulars. the author of the fourth gospel, however, not only-makes jesus expel the sellers of doves and the moneychangers, but adds: "those selling oxen and sheep." now, not only is there not the slightest evidence that sheep and oxen were bought and sold in the temple, but it is obvious that there was no room there to do so. on the contrary, it is known that the market for cattle was not only distant from the temple, but even from the city.( ) the author himself betrays the foreign element in his account by making jesus address his words, when driving them all out, only "to them selling doves." why single these out and seem to exclude the sellers of sheep and oxen? he has apparently forgotten his own interpolation. in the first gospel, the connection of the words of jesus with the narrative suggests an explanation: xxi. "... and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats _of those selling doves, and saith to them_, &c." upon the occasion of this episode, the fourth gospel represents jesus as replying to the demand of the jews for a sign why he did such things: "destroy this temple, and within three days i will raise it up," which the jews understand very naturally only in a material sense, and which even the disciples only comprehended and believed "after the resurrection." the synoptists not only know nothing of this, but represent the saying as the false testimony which the false witnesses bare { } against jesus.( ) no such charge is brought against jesus at all in the fourth gospel. so little do the synoptists know of the conversation of jesus with the samaritan woman, and his sojourn for two days at sychar, that in his instructions to his disciples, in the first gospel, jesus positively forbids them either to go to the gentiles or to enter into any city of the samaritans.( ) the fourth gospel has very few miracles in common with the synoptics, and those few present notable variations. after the feeding of the five thousand, jesus, according to the synoptics, constrains his disciples to enter a ship and to go to the other side of the lake of gennesaret, whilst he himself goes up a mountain apart to pray. a storm arises, and jesus appears walking to them over the sea, whereat the disciples are troubled, but peter says to him: "lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee over the water," and on his going out of the ship over the water, and beginning to sink, he cries: "lord save me;" jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and when they had come into the ship, the wind ceased, and they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying: "of a truth thou art the son of god." ( ) the fourth gospel, instead of representing jesus as retiring to the mountain to pray, which would have been opposed to the authors idea of the logos, makes the motive for going thither the knowledge of jesus that the people "would come and take him by force that they might make him a king."( ) the writer altogether ignores the episode of peter walking on the sea, and adds a new miracle by stating that, as soon as jesus was received on { } board, "the ship was at the land whither they were going."( ) the synoptics go on to describe the devout excitement and faith of all the country round, but the fourth gospel, limiting the effect on the multitude in the first instance to curiosity as to how jesus had crossed the lake, represents jesus as upbraiding them for following him, not because they saw miracles, but because they had eaten of the loaves and been filled,( ) and makes him deliver one of those long dogmatic discourses, interrupted by, and based upon, the remarks of the crowd, which so peculiarly distinguish the fourth gospel. without dwelling upon such details of miracles, however, we proceed with our slight comparison. whilst the fourth gospel from the very commencement asserts the foreknowledge of jesus as to who should betray him, and makes him inform the twelve that one of them is a devil, alluding to judas iscariot,( ) the synoptists represent jesus as having so little foreknowledge that judas should betray him that, shortly before the end and, indeed, according to the third gospel, only at the last supper, jesus promises that the disciples shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel,( ) and it is only at the last supper, after judas has actually arranged with the chief priests, and apparently from knowledge of the fact, that jesus for the first time speaks of his betrayal by him.( ) on his way to jerusalem, two days before the passover,( ) jesus comes to bethany where, { } according to the synoptics, being in the house of simon the leper, a woman with an alabaster box of very precious ointment came and poured the ointment upon his head, much to the indignation of the disciples, who say: "to what purpose is this waste? for this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor."( ) in the fourth gospel the episode takes place six days before the passover,( ) in the house of lazarus, and it is his sister mary who takes a pound of very costly ointment, but she anoints the feet of jesus and wipes his feet with her hair. it is judas iscariot, and not the disciples, who says: "why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?" and jesus makes a similar reply to that in the synoptics, showing the identity of the occurrence described so differently.( ) the synoptics represent most clearly that jesus on the evening of the th nisan, after the custom of the jews, ate the passover with his disciples,( ) and that he was arrested in the first hours of the th nisan, the day on which he was put to death. nothing can be more distinct than the statement that the last supper was the paschal feast. "they made ready the passover [------], and when the hour was come, he sat down and the apostles with him, and he said to them: with desire i desired to eat this passover with you before i suffer" [------].( ) the fourth gospel, however, in accordance with the principle which is dominant throughout, represents the last repast { } which jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper [------], which takes place, not on the th, but on the th nisan, the day "before the feast of the passover" [------],( ) and his death takes place on the th, the day on which the paschal lamb was slain. jesus is delivered by pilate to the jews to be crucified about the sixth hour of "the preparation of the passover" [------],( ) and because it was "the preparation," the legs of the two men crucified with jesus were broken, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the great day of the feast.( ) the fourth gospel totally ignores the institution of the christian festival at the last supper, but, instead, represents jesus as washing the feet of the disciples, enjoining them also to wash each other's feet: "for i gave you an example that ye should do according as i did to you."( ) the synoptics have no knowledge of this incident. immediately after the warning to peter of his future denial, jesus goes out with the disciples to the garden of gethsemane and, taking peter and the two sons of zebedee apart, began to be sorrowful and very depressed and, as he prayed in his agony that if possible the cup might pass from him, an angel comforts him. instead of this, the fourth gospel represents jesus as delivering, after the warning to peter, the longest discourses in the gospel: "let not your heart be troubled," &c; "i am the true vine,"( ) &c; and, although said to be written by one of the sons of zebedee who were with jesus on the occasion, the fourth gospel does not mention the agony in the garden but, on the contrary, makes jesus utter the long { } prayer xvii. -- , in a calm and even exulting spirit very far removed from the sorrow and depression of the more natural scene in gethsemane. the prayer, like the rest of the prayers in the gospel, is a mere didactic and dogmatic address for the benefit of the hearers. the arrest of jesus presents a similar contrast. in the synoptics, judas comes with a multitude from the chief priests and elders of the people armed with swords and staves, and, indicating his master by a kiss, jesus is simply arrested and, after the slight resistance of one of the disciples, is led away.( ) in the fourth gospel, the case is very different. judas comes with a band of men from the chief priests and pharisees, with lanterns and torches and weapons, and jesus--"knowing all things which were coming to pass"--himself goes towards them and asks: "whom seek ye?" judas plays no active part, and no kiss is given. the fourth evangelist is, as ever, bent on showing that all which happens to the logos is predetermined by himself and voluntarily encountered. as soon as jesus replies: "i am he," the whole band of soldiers go backwards and fall to the ground, an incident thoroughly in the spirit of the early apocryphal gospels still extant, and of an evidently legendary character. he is then led away first to annas, who sends him to caiaphas, whilst the synoptics naturally know nothing of annas, who was not the high priest and had no authority. we need not follow the trial, which is fundamentally different in the synoptics and fourth gospel; and we have already pointed out that, in the synoptics, jesus is crucified on the th nisan, whereas in the fourth gospel he is put to death--the spiritual paschal lamb--on the th nisan. according { } to the fourth gospel, jesus bears his own cross to calvary,( ) but the synoptics represent it as being borne by simon of cyrene.( ) as a very singular illustration of the inaccuracy of all the gospels, we may point to the circumstance that no two of them agree even about so simple a matter of fact as the inscription on the cross, assuming that there was one at all. they give it respectively as follows: "this is jesus the king of the jews;" "the king of the jews;" "this (is) the king of the jews;" and the fourth gospel: "jesus the nazarene the king of the jews."( ) the occurrences during the crucifixion are profoundly different in the fourth gospel from those narrated in the synoptics. in the latter, only the women are represented as beholding afar off,( ) but "the beloved disciple" is added in the fourth gospel, and instead of being far off, they are close to the cross; and for the last cries of jesus reported in the synoptics we have the episode in which jesus confides his mother to the disciple's care. we need not at present compare the other details of the crucifixion and resurrection, which are differently reported by each of the gospels. we have only indicated a few of the more salient differences between the fourth gospel and the synoptics, which are rendered much more striking, in the gospels themselves, by the profound dissimilarity of the sentiments uttered by jesus. we merely point out, in passing, the omission of important episodes from the fourth { } gospel, such as the temptation in the wilderness; the transfiguration, at which, according to the synoptics, the sons of zebedee were present; the last supper; the agony in the garden; the mournful cries on the cross; and, we may add, the ascension; and if we turn to the miracles of jesus, we find that almost all of those narrated by the synoptics are ignored, whilst an almost entirely new series is introduced. there is not a single instance of the cure of demoniacal possession in any form recorded in the fourth gospel. indeed the number of miracles is reduced in that gospel to a few typical cases; and although at the close it is generally said that jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, these alone are written with the declared purpose: "that ye might believe that jesus is the christ, the son of god."( ) we may briefly refer in detail to one miracle of the fourth gospel--the raising of lazarus. the extraordinary fact that the synoptists are utterly ignorant of this the greatest of the miracles attributed to jesus has been too frequently discussed to require much comment here. it will be remembered that, as the case of the daughter of jairus is, by the express declaration of jesus, one of mere suspension of consciousness,( ) the only instance in which a dead person is distinctly said, in any of the synoptics, to have been restored to life by jesus is that of the son of the widow of nain.( ) it is, therefore, quite impossible to suppose that the synoptists could have known of the raising of lazarus and wilfully omitted it. it is equally impossible to believe that the authors of the synoptic gospels, from whatever sources they may have drawn their materials, { } could have been ignorant of such a miracle had it really-taken place. this astounding miracle, according to the fourth gospel, created such general excitement that it was one of the leading events which led to the arrest and crucifixion of jesus.( ) if, therefore, the synoptics had any connection with the writers to whom they are referred, the raising of lazarus must have been personally known to their reputed authors either directly or through the apostles who are supposed to have inspired them, or even if they have any claim to contemporary origin the tradition of the greatest miracle of jesus must have been fresh throughout the church, if such a wonder had ever been performed.( ) the total ignorance of such a miracle displayed by the whole of the works of the new testament, therefore, forms the strongest presumptive evidence that the narrative in the fourth gospel is a mere imaginary scene, illustrative of the dogma: "i am the resurrection and the life," upon which it is based. this conclusion is confirmed by the peculiarities of the narrative itself. when jesus first hears, from the message of the sisters, that lazarus whom he loved was sick, he declares, xi. : "this sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of god, that the son of god may be glorified thereby;" and v. : "when, therefore [------], he heard that he was sick, at that time he continued two days in the place where he was." after that time he proposes to go into judaea, and explains to the disciples, v. : "our friend lazarus is fallen asleep; but i go that i may awake him out of sleep." the disciples reply, with the stupidity with which the fourth evangelist endows all those who hold colloquy with jesus, { } v. : "lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. howbeit, jesus spake of his death; but they thought that he was speaking of the taking of rest in sleep. then said jesus unto them plainly: lazarus is dead, and i am glad for your sakes that i was not there, to the intent that ye may believe." the artificial nature of all this introductory matter will not have escaped the reader, and it is further illustrated by that which follows. arrived at bethany, they find that lazarus has lain in the grave already four days. martha says to jesus (v. £): "lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. and i know that even now whatsoever thou shalt ask of god, god will give thee. jesus saith unto her: they brother shall rise again." martha, of course, as usual, misunderstands this saying as applying to "the resurrection at the last day," in order to introduce the reply: "i am the resurrection and the life," &c. when they come to the house, and jesus sees mary and the jews weeping, "he groaned in spirit and troubled himself," and on reaching the grave itself (v. . f.), "jesus wept: then said the jews: behold how he loved him!" now this representation, which has ever since been the admiration of christendom, presents the very strongest marks of unreality. jesus, who loves lazarus so much, disregards the urgent message of the sisters and, whilst openly declaring that his sickness is not unto death, intentionally lingers until his friend dies. when he does go to bethany, and is on the very point of restoring lazarus to life and dissipating the grief of his family and friends he actually weeps and groans in his spirit. there is so total an absence of reason for such grief at such a moment that these tears, to any sober reader, are unmistakably mere theatrical adjuncts of a scene { } elaborated out of the imagination of the writer. the suggestion of the bystanders (v. ), that he might have prevented the death, is not more probable than the continuation (v. ): "jesus, therefore, again groaning in himself cometh to the grave." there, having ordered the stone to be removed, he delivers a prayer avowedly intended merely for the bystanders (v. ff): "and jesus lifted up his eyes and said, father, i thank thee that thou hast heard me, and i knew that thou hearest me always: but for the sake of the multitude which stand around i said this, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." this prayer is as evidently artificial as the rest of the details of the miracle but, as in other elaborately arranged scenic representations, the charm is altogether dispelled when closer examination shows the character of the dramatic elements. a careful consideration of the narrative and of all the facts of the case must, we think, lead to the conclusion that this miracle is not even a historical tradition of the life of jesus, but is wholly an ideal composition by the author of the fourth gospel. this being the case, the other miracles of the gospel need not detain us. if the historical part of the fourth gospel be in irreconcilable contradiction to the synoptics, the didactic is infinitely more so. the teaching of the one is totally different from that of the others, in spirit, form, and terminology; and although there are undoubtedly fine sayings throughout the work, in the prolix discourses of the fourth gospel there is not a single characteristic of the simple eloquence of the sermon on the mount. in the diffuse mysticism of the logos, we can scarcely recognise a trace of the terse practical wisdom of jesus of nazareth. it must, of course, be apparent even to the most superficial { } observer that, in the fourth gospel, we are introduced to a perfectly new system of instruction, and to an order of ideas of which there is not a vestige in the synoptics. instead of short and concise lessons full of striking truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved dogmatic discourses of little practical utility. the limpid spontaneity of that earlier teaching, with its fresh illustrations and profound sentences uttered without effort and untinged by art, is exchanged for diffuse addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and design are everywhere apparent. from pure and living morality couched in brief incisive sayings, which enter the heart and dwell upon the ear, we turn to elaborate philosophical orations without clearness or order, and to doctrinal announcements unknown to the synoptics. to the inquiry: "what shall i do to inherit eternal life?" jesus replies, in the synoptics: "thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself,... this do, and thou shalt live."( ) in the fourth gospel, to the question: "what must we do, that we may work the works of god?" jesus answers, "this is the work of god, that ye should believe in him whom he sent."( ) the teaching of jesus, in the synoptics, is almost wholly moral and, in the fourth gospel, it is almost wholly dogmatic. if christianity consist of the doctrines preached in the fourth gospel, it is not too much to say that the synoptics do not teach christianity at all. the extraordinary phenomenon is presented of three gospels, each professing to be complete in itself and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man, { } which have actually omitted the doctrines which are the condition of that salvation. the fourth gospel practically expounds a new religion. it is undeniable that morality and precepts of love and charity for the conduct of life are the staple of the teaching of jesus in the synoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that it is regarded as a subordinate and secondary consideration. in the fourth gospel, however, dogma is the one thing needful, and forms the whole substance of the preaching of the logos. the burden of his teaching is: "he that believeth on the son, hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the son, shall not see life, but the wrath of god abideth on him."( ) it is scarcely possible to put the contrast between the synoptics and the fourth gospel in too strong a light if we possessed the synoptics without the fourth gospel, we should have the exposition of pure morality based on perfect love to god and man. if we had the fourth gospel without the synoptics, we should have little more than a system of dogmatic theology without morality. not only is the doctrine and the terminology of the jesus of the fourth gospel quite different from that of the jesus of the synoptics, but so is the teaching of john the baptist. in the synoptics, he comes preaching the baptism of repentance( ) and, like the master, inculcating principles of morality;( ) but in the fourth gospel he has adopted the peculiar views of the author, proclaims "the lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world,"( ) and bears witness that he is "the son of god."( ) we hear of the paraclete for the first time in the fourth gospel it is so impossible to ignore the distinct individuality { } of the jesus of the fourth gospel, and of his teaching, that even apologists are obliged to admit that the peculiarities of the author have coloured the portrait, and introduced an element of subjectivity into the discourses. it was impossible, they confess, that the apostle could remember verbally such long orations for half a century, and at best that they can only be accepted as substantially correct reports of the teaching of jesus.( ) "above all," says ewald, "the discourses of christ and of others in this gospel are clothed as by an entirely new colour: on this account also scepticism has desired to conclude that the apostle cannot have composed the gospel; and yet no conclusion is more unfounded. when the apostle at so late a period determined to compose the work, it was certainly impossible for him to reproduce all the words exactly as they were spoken, if he did not perhaps desire not merely to recall a few memorable sentences but, in longer discussions of more weighty subjects, to charm back all the animation with which they were once given. so he availed himself of that freedom in their revivification which is both quite intelligible in itself, and sufficiently warranted by the precedent of so many great examples of antiquity: and where the discourses extend to greater length, there entered involuntarily into the structure much of that fundamental conception and language regarding the { } manifestation of christ, which had long become deeply rooted in the apostle's soul. but as certainly as these discourses bear upon them the colouring of the apostle's mind, so certainly do they agree in their substantial contents with his best recollections--because the spruchsammlung proves that the discourses of christ in certain moments really could rise to the full elevation, which in john only surprises us throughout more than in matthew. to deny the apostolical authorship of the gospel for such reasons, therefore, were pure folly, and in the highest degree unjust. moreover, the circumstance that, in the drawing up of such discourses, we sometimes see him reproduce or further develop sayings which had already been recorded in the older gospels, can prove nothing against the apostolical origin of the gospel, as he was indeed at perfect liberty, if he pleased, to make use of the contents of such older writings when he considered it desirable, and when they came to the help of his own memory of those long passed days: for he certainly retained many or all of such expressions also in his own memory."( ) elsewhere, he describes the work as "glorified gospel history," composed out of "glorified recollection."( ) another strenuous defender of the authenticity of the fourth gospel wrote of it as follows: "nevertheless, everything is reconcilable," says gfrörer, "if one accepts that testimony of the elders as true. for as john must have written the gospel as an old man, that is to say not before the year -- of our era, there is an interval of more than half a century between the time { } when the events which he relates really happened, and the time of the composition of his book,--space enough certainly to make a few mistakes conceivable, even presupposing a good memory and unshaken love of truth. let us imagine, for instance, that to-day (in ) an old man of eighty to ninety years of age should write down from mere memory the occurrences of the american war (of independence), in which he himself in his early youth played a part. certainly in his narrative, even though it might otherwise be true, many traits would be found which would not agree with the original event. moreover, another particular circumstance must be added in connection with the fourth gospel. two-thirds of it consist of discourses, which john places in the mouth of jesus christ. now every day's experience proves that oral impressions are much more fleeting than those of sight. the happiest memory scarcely retains long orations after three or four years: how, then, could john with verbal accuracy report the discourses of jesus after fifty or sixty years! we must be content if he truly render the chief contents and spirit of them, and that he does this, as a rule, can be proved. it has been shown above that already, before christ, a very peculiar philosophy of religion had been formed among the egyptian jews, which found its way into palestine through the essenes, and also numbered numerous adherents amongst the jews of the adjacent countries of syria and asia minor. the apostle paul professed this: not less the evangelist john. undoubtedly, the latter allowed this theosophy to exercise a strong influence upon his representation of the life-history of jesus,"( ) &c. { } now all such admissions, whilst they are absolutely requisite to explain the undeniable phenomena of the fourth gospel, have one obvious consequence: the fourth gospel, by whomsoever written,--even if it could be traced to the apostle john himself,--has no real historical value, being at best the "glorified recollections" of an old man, written down half a century after the events recorded. the absolute difference between the teaching of this gospel and of the synoptics becomes perfectly intelligible, when the long discourses are recognized to be the result of alexandrian philosophy artistically interwoven with developed pauline christianity, and put into the mouth of jesus. it will have been remarked that along with the admission of great subjectivity in the report of the discourses, and the plea that nothing beyond the mere substance of the original teaching can reasonably be looked for, there is, in the extracts we have given, an assertion that there actually is a faithful reproduction in this gospel of the original substance. there is not a shadow of proof of this, but on the contrary the strongest reason for denying the fact; for, unless it be admitted that the synoptics have so completely omitted the whole doctrinal part of the teaching of jesus, have so carefully avoided the very peculiar terminology of the logos gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and erroneous an impression of the life and religious system of jesus that, without the fourth gospel, we should not actually have had an idea of his fundamental doctrines, we must inevitably recognize that the fourth gospel cannot possibly be a true reproduction of his teaching. it is impossible that jesus can have had two such diametrically opposed systems of teaching,--one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one expressed in { } wonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long, involved, and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of humanity, the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology;--and that these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the synoptics, on the one hand, and the fourth gospel, on the other. the tradition of justin martin applies solely to the system of the synoptics: "brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he was no sophist, but his word was the power of god."( ) we have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial construction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth gospel, and the more closely these are examined, the more clear does it become that they are not genuine reports of the teaching of jesus, but mere ideal compositions by the author of the fourth gospel. the speeches of john the baptist, the discourses of jesus, and the reflections of the evangelist himself,( ) are marked by the same peculiarity of style and proceed from the same mind. it is scarcely possible to determine where the one begins and the other ends.( ) it is quite clear, for instance, that the author himself, without a break, continues the words which he puts into the mouth of jesus, in the colloquy with nicodemus, but it is not easy to determine where. the whole dialogue is artificial in the extreme, and is certainly not genuine, and this is apparent not only from the replies attributed to the "teacher of israel," but to the irrelevant manner in which the reflections loosely ramble from the new birth to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and following verses, which are the never-failing resource of the { } evangelist when other subjects are exhausted. the sentiments and almost the words either attributed to jesus, or added by the writer, to which we are now referring, iii. ff., we find again in the very same chapter, either put into the mouth of john the baptist, or as reflections of the author, verses -- , for again we add that it is difficult anywhere to discriminate the speaker. indeed, while the synoptics are rich in the abundance of practical counsel and profound moral insight, as well as in variety of illustrative parables, it is remarkable how much sameness there is in all the discourses of the fourth gospel, a very few ideas being constantly reproduced. whilst the teaching of jesus in the synoptics is singularly universal and impersonal, in the fourth gospel it is purely personal, and rarely passes beyond the declaration of his own dignity, and the inculcation of belief in him as the only means of salvation. there are certainly some sayings of rare beauty which tradition or earlier records may have preserved, but these may easily be distinguished from the mass of the work. a very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in xvii. : "and this is eternal life, to know thee the only true god, and him whom thou didst send, even jesus christ." even apologists admit that it is impossible that jesus could speak of himself as "jesus christ." we need not, however, proceed further with such analysis. we believe that no one can calmly and impartially examine the fourth gospel without being convinced of its artificial character. if some portions possess real charm, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their attraction consists chiefly in the presence of a certain vague but suggestive mysticism. the natural longing of humanity for any revelation regarding a future state has not been { } appealed to in vain. that the diffuse and often monotonous discourses of this gospel, however, should ever have been preferred to the grand simplicity of the teaching of the synoptics, illustrated by such parables as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the prodigal son, and culminating in the sermon on the mount, each sentence of which is so full of profound truth and beauty, is little to the credit of critical sense and judgment. the elaborate explanations by which the phenomena of the fourth gospel are reconciled with the assumption that it was composed by the apostle john are in vain, and there is not a single item of evidence within the first century and a half which does not agree with internal testimony in opposing the supposition. to one point, however, we must briefly refer in connection with this statement. it is asserted that the gospel and epistles--or at least the first epistle--of the canon ascribed to the apostle john are by one author, although this is not without contradiction,( ) and very many of those who agree as to the identity of authorship by no means admit the author to have been the apostle john. it is argued, therefore, that the use of the epistle by polycarp and papias is evidence of the apostolic origin of the gospel. we have, however, seen, that not only is it very uncertain that polycarp made use of the epistle at all, but that he does not in any case mention its author's name. there is not a particle of evidence that he ascribed the epistle, even supposing he knew it, to the { } apostle john. with regard to papias, the only authority for the assertion that he knew the epistle is the statement of eusebius already quoted and discussed, that: "he used testimonies out of john's first epistle,"( ) there is no evidence, however, even supposing the statement of eusebius to be correct, that he ascribed it to the apostle. the earliest undoubted references to the epistle, in fact, are by irenæus and clement of alexandria, so that this evidence is of little avail for the gospel. there is no name attached to the first epistle, and the second and third have the superscription of "the presbyter," which, applying the argument of ewald regarding the author of the apocalypse, ought to be conclusive against their being written by an apostle. as all three are evidently by the same writer, and intended to be understood as by the author of the gospel, and that writer does not pretend to be an apostle, but calls himself a simple presbyter, the epistles likewise give presumptive evidence against the apostolic authorship of the gospel. there is another important testimony against the johannine origin of the fourth gospel to which we must briefly refer. we have pointed out that, according to the fourth gospel, jesus did not eat the paschal supper with his disciples, but that being arrested on the th nisan, he was put to death on the th, the actual day upon which the paschal lamb was sacrificed. the synoptics, on the contrary, represent that jesus ate the passover with his disciples on the evening of the th, and was crucified on the th nisan. the difference of opinion indicated by these contradictory accounts actually prevailed in various churches, and in the { } second half of the second century a violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true passover of the lord" should be celebrated, the church in asia minor maintaining that it should be observed on the th nisan,--the day on which, according to the synoptics, jesus himself celebrated the passover and instituted the christian festival,--whilst the roman church as well as most other christians,--following the fourth gospel, which represents jesus as not celebrating the last passover, but being himself slain upon the th nisan, the true paschal lamb,--had abandoned the day of the jewish feast altogether, and celebrated the christian festival on easter sunday, upon which the resurrection was supposed to have taken place. polycarp, who went to rome to represent the churches of asia minor in the discussions upon the subject, could not be induced to give up the celebration on the th nisan, the day which, according to tradition, had always been observed, and he appealed to the practice of the apostle john himself in support of that date. eusebius quotes from irenæus the statement of the case: "for neither could anicetus persuade polycarp not to observe it (the th nisan), because he had ever observed it with john the disciple of our lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he consorted."( ) towards the end of the century, polycrates, the bishop of ephesus, likewise appeals to the practice of "john who reclined upon the bosom of the lord," as well as of the apostle philip and his daughters, and of polycarp and others in support of the same day: "all these observed { } the th day of the passover, according to the gospel, deviating from it in no respect, but following according to the rule of the faith."(l) now it is evident that, according to this undoubted testimony, the apostle john by his own practice, ratified the account of the synoptics, and contradicted the data of the fourth gospel, and upon the supposition that he so long lived in asia minor it is probable that his authority largely contributed to establish the observance of the th nisan there. we must, therefore, either admit that the apostle john by his practice reversed the statement of his own gospel, or that he was not its author, which of course is the natural conclusion. without going further into the discussion, which would detain us too long, it is clear that the paschal controversy is opposed to the supposition that the apostle john was the author of the fourth gospel.( ) we have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth gospel that it was composed by the son of zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the strongest reason for believing that he did not write it. the first writer who quotes a passage of the gospel with the mention of his name is theophilus of antioch, who gives the few words: "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god," as spoken by "john," whom he considers amongst the divinely inspired [------] { } [------],( ) though even he does not distinguish. him as the apostle. we have seen the legendary nature of the late traditions regarding the composition of the gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence of it in the canon of muratori, and we must not further quote them. the first writer who distinctly classes the four gospels together is irenæus; and the reasons which he gives for the existence of precisely that number in the canon of the church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers, and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments. "but neither can the gospels be more in number than they are," says irenæus, "nor, on the other hand, can they be fewer. for as there are four quarters of the world in which we are, and four general winds [------], and the church is disseminated throughout all the world, and the gospel is the pillar and prop of the church and the spirit of life, it is right that she should have four pillars, on all sides breathing out immortality and revivifying men. from which it is manifest that the word, the maker of all, he who sitteth upon the cherubim and containeth all things, who was manifested to man, has given to us the gospel, four-formed but possessed by one spirit; as david also says, supplicating his advent: 'thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.' for the cherubim also are four-faced, and their faces are symbols of the working of the son of god.... and the gospels, therefore, are in harmony with these amongst which christ is seated. for the gospel according to john relates his first effectual and glorious generation from the father, saying: 'in the ad autolyc, ii. . tischendorf dates this work about a.d. . wann wurden, a. s. w., p. , anm. . { } beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god,' and 'all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.' on this account also this gospel is full of all trustworthiness, for such is his person.( ) but the gospel according to luke, being as it were of priestly character, opened with zacharias the priest sacrificing to god.... but matthew narrates his generation as a man, saying: 'the book of the generation of jesus christ, the son of david, the son of abraham,' and 'the birth of jesus christ was on this wise,' this gospel, therefore, is anthropomorphic, and on this account a man, humble and mild in character, is presented throughout the gospel. but mark makes his commencement after a prophetic spirit coming down from on high unto men, saying: 'the beginning of the gospel of jesus christ, as it is written in isaiah the prophet;' indicating the winged form of the gospel; and for this reason he makes a compendious and precursory declaration, for this is the prophetic character.... such, therefore, as was the course of the son of god, such also is the form of the living creatures; and such as is the form of the living creatures, such also is the character of the gospel. for quadriform are the living creatures, quadriform is the gospel, and quadriform the course of the lord. and on this account four covenants were given to the human race.... these things being thus: vain and ignorant and, moreover, audacious are those who set aside the form of the gospel, and declare the aspects of the gospels as either more or less than has been said."( ) as such principles of criticism presided the greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not preserved. the latin version reads as follows: propter hoc et omni fiducia plenum est evangelium istud; talis est enim persona ejus. { } over the formation of the canon, it is not singular that so many of the decisions of the fathers have been reversed. irenæus himself mentioned the existence of heretics who rejected the fourth gospel,( ) and epiphanius( ) refers to the alogi, who equally denied its authenticity, but it is not needful for us further to discuss this point. enough has been said to show that the testimony of the fourth gospel is of no value towards establishing the truth of miracles and the reality of divine revelation. end of vol. ii. www.pgdp.net. collected essays; volume v science and christian tradition by thomas h. huxley new york, d. appleton and company, preface "for close upon forty years i have been writing with one purpose; from time to time, i have fought for that which seemed to me the truth, perhaps still more, against that which i have thought error; and, in this way, i have reached, indeed over-stepped, the threshold of old age. there, every earnest man has to listen to the voice within: 'give an account of thy stewardship, for thou mayest be no longer steward.' "that i have been an unjust steward my conscience does not bear witness. at times blundering, at times negligent, heaven knows: but, on the whole, i have done that which i felt able and called upon to do; and i have done it without looking to the right or to the left; seeking no man's favor, fearing no man's disfavor. "but what is it that i have been doing? in the end one's conceptions should form a whole, though only parts may have found utterance, as occasion arose; now do these exhibit harmony and mutual connexion? in one's zeal much of the old gets broken to pieces; but has one made ready something new, fit to be set in the place of the old? "that they merely destroy without reconstructing, is the especial charge, with which those who work in this direction are constantly reproached. in a certain sense i do not defend myself against the charge; but i deny that any reproach is deserved. "i have never proposed to myself to begin outward construction; because i do not believe that the time has come for it. our present business is with inward preparation, especially the preparation of those who have ceased to be content with the old, and find no satisfaction in half measures. i have wished, and i still wish, to disturb no man's peace of mind, no man's beliefs; but only to point out to those in whom they are already shattered, the direction in which, in my conviction, firmer ground lies."[ ] so wrote one of the protagonists of the new reformation--and a well-abused man if ever there was one--a score of years since, in the remarkable book in which he discusses the negative and the positive results of the rigorous application of scientific method to the investigation of the higher problems of human life. recent experience leads me to imagine that there may be a good many countrymen of my own, even at this time, to whom it may be profitable to read, mark and inwardly digest, the weighty words of the author of that "leben jesu," which, half a century ago, stirred the religious world so seriously that it has never settled down again quite on the old foundations; indeed, some think it never will. i have a personal interest in the carrying out of the recommendation i venture to make. it may enable many worthy persons, in whose estimation i should really be glad to stand higher than i do, to become aware of the possibility that my motives in writing the essays, contained in this and the preceding volume, were not exactly those that they ascribe to me. i too have reached the term at which the still, small voice, more audible than any other to the dulled ear of age, makes its demand; and i have found that it is of no sort of use to try to cook the accounts rendered. nevertheless, i distinctly decline to admit some of the items charged; more particularly that of having "gone out of my way" to attack the bible; and i as steadfastly deny that "hatred of christianity" is a feeling with which i have any acquaintance. there are very few things which i find it permissible to hate; and though, it may be, that some of the organisations, which arrogate to themselves the christian name, have richly earned a place in the category of hateful things, that ought to have nothing to do with one's estimation of the religion, which they have perverted and disfigured out of all likeness to the original. the simple fact is that, as i have already more than once hinted, my story is that of the wolf and the lamb over again. i have never "gone out of my way" to attack the bible, or anything else: it was the dominant ecclesiasticism of my early days, which, as i believe, without any warrant from the bible itself, thrust the book in my way. i had set out on a journey, with no other purpose than that of exploring a certain province of natural knowledge; i strayed no hair's breadth from the course which it was my right and my duty to pursue; and yet i found that, whatever route i took, before long, i came to a tall and formidable-looking fence. confident as i might be in the existence of an ancient and indefeasible right of way, before me stood the thorny barrier with its comminatory notice-board--"no thoroughfare. by order. moses." there seemed no way over; nor did the prospect of creeping round, as i saw some do, attract me. true there was no longer any cause to fear the spring guns and man-traps set by former lords of the manor; but one is apt to get very dirty going on all-fours. the only alternatives were either to give up my journey--which i was not minded to do--or to break the fence down and go through it. now i was and am, by nature, a law-abiding person, ready and willing to submit to all legitimate authority. but i also had and have a rooted conviction, that reasonable assurance of the legitimacy should precede the submission; so i made it my business to look up the manorial title-deeds. the pretensions of the ecclesiastical "moses" to exercise a control over the operations of the reasoning faculty in the search after truth, thirty centuries after his age, might be justifiable; but, assuredly, the credentials produced in justification of claims so large required careful scrutiny. singular discoveries rewarded my industry. the ecclesiastical "moses" proved to be a mere traditional mask, behind which, no doubt, lay the features of the historical moses--just as many a mediæval fresco has been hidden by the whitewash of georgian churchwardens. and as the æsthetic rector too often scrapes away the defacement, only to find blurred, parti-coloured patches, in which the original design is no longer to be traced; so, when the successive layers of jewish and christian traditional pigment, laid on, at intervals, for near three thousand years, had been removed, by even the tenderest critical operations, there was not much to be discerned of the leader of the exodus. only one point became perfectly clear to me, namely, that moses is not responsible for nine-tenths of the pentateuch; certainly not for the legends which had been made the bugbears of science. in fact, the fence turned out to be a mere heap of dry sticks and brushwood, and one might walk through it with impunity: the which i did. but i was still young, when i thus ventured to assert my liberty; and young people are apt to be filled with a kind of _sæva indignatio_, when they discover the wide discrepancies between things as they seem and things as they are. it hurts their vanity to feel that they have prepared themselves for a mighty struggle to climb over, or break their way through, a rampart, which turns out, on close approach, to be a mere heap of ruins; venerable, indeed, and archæologically interesting, but of no other moment. and some fragment of the superfluous energy accumulated is apt to find vent in strong language. such, i suppose, was my case, when i wrote some passages which occur in an essay reprinted among "darwiniana."[ ] but when, not long ago "the voice" put it to me, whether i had better not expunge, or modify, these passages; whether, really, they were not a little too strong; i had to reply, with all deference, that while, from a merely literary point of view, i might admit them to be rather crude, i must stand by the substance of these items of my expenditure. i further ventured to express the conviction that scientific criticism of the old testament, since , has justified every word of the estimate of the authority of the ecclesiastical "moses" written at that time. and, carried away by the heat of self-justification, i even ventured to add, that the desperate attempt now set afoot to force biblical and post-biblical mythology into elementary instruction, renders it useful and necessary to go on making a considerable outlay in the same direction. not yet, has "the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous hebrew" ceased to be the "incubus of the philosopher, and the opprobrium of the orthodox;" not yet, has "the zeal of the bibliolater" ceased from troubling; not yet, are the weaker sort, even of the instructed, at rest from their fruitless toil "to harmonise impossibilities," and "to force the generous new wine of science into the old bottles of judaism." but i am aware that the head and front of my offending lies not now where it formerly lay. thirty years ago, criticism of "moses" was held by most respectable people to be deadly sin; now it has sunk to the rank of a mere peccadillo; at least, if it stops short of the history of abraham. destroy the foundation of most forms of dogmatic christianity contained in the second chapter of genesis, if you will; the new ecclesiasticism undertakes to underpin the superstructure and make it, at any rate to the eye, as firm as ever: but let him be anathema who applies exactly the same canons of criticism to the opening chapters of "matthew" or of "luke." school-children may be told that the world was by no means made in six days, and that implicit belief in the story of noah's ark is permissible only, as a matter of business, to their toy-makers; but they are to hold for the certainest of truths, to be doubted only at peril of their salvation, that their galilean fellow-child jesus, nineteen centuries ago, had no human father. * * * * * well, we will pass the item of , said "the voice." but why all this more recent coil about the gadarene swine and the like? do you pretend that these poor animals got in your way, years and years after the "mosaic" fences were down, at any rate so far as you are concerned? got in my way? why, my good "voice," they were driven in my way. i had happened to make a statement, than which, so far as i have ever been able to see, nothing can be more modest or inoffensive; to wit, that i am convinced of my own utter ignorance about a great number of things, respecting which the great majority of my neighbours (not only those of adult years, but children repeating their catechisms) affirm themselves to possess full information. i ask any candid and impartial judge, is that attacking anybody or anything? yet, if i had made the most wanton and arrogant onslaught on the honest convictions of other people, i could not have been more hardly dealt with. the pentecostal charism, i believe, exhausted itself amongst the earliest disciples. yet any one who has had to attend, as i have done, to copious objurgations, strewn with such appellations as "infidel" and "coward," must be a hardened sceptic indeed if he doubts the existence of a "gift of tongues" in the churches of our time; unless, indeed, it should occur to him that some of these outpourings may have taken place after "the third hour of the day." i am far from thinking that it is worth while to give much attention to these inevitable incidents of all controversies, in which one party has acquired the mental peculiarities which are generated by the habit of much talking, with immunity from criticism. but as a rule, they are the sauce of dishes of misrepresentations and inaccuracies which it may be a duty, nay, even an innocent pleasure, to expose. in the particular case of which i am thinking, i felt, as strauss says, "able and called upon" to undertake the business: and it is no responsibility of mine, if i found the gospels, with their miraculous stories, of which the gadarene is a typical example, blocking my way, as heretofore, the pentateuch had done. i was challenged to question the authority for the theory of "the spiritual world," and the practical consequences deducible from human relations to it, contained in these documents. in my judgment, the actuality of this spiritual world--the value of the evidence for its objective existence and its influence upon the course of things--are matters, which lie as much within the province of science, as any other question about the existence and powers of the varied forms of living and conscious activity. it really is my strong conviction that a man has no more right to say he believes this world is haunted by swarms of evil spirits, without being able to produce satisfactory evidence of the fact, than he has a right to say, without adducing adequate proof, that the circumpolar antarctic ice swarms with sea-serpents. i should not like to assert positively that it does not. i imagine that no cautious biologist would say as much; but while quite open to conviction, he might properly decline to waste time upon the consideration of talk, no better accredited than forecastle "yarns," about such monsters of the deep. and if the interests of ordinary veracity dictate this course, in relation to a matter of so little consequence as this, what must be our obligations in respect of the treatment of a question which is fundamental alike for science and for ethics? for not only does our general theory of the universe and of the nature of the order which pervades it, hang upon the answer; but the rules of practical life must be deeply affected by it. the belief in a demonic world is inculcated throughout the gospels and the rest of the books of the new testament; it pervades the whole patristic literature; it colours the theory and the practice of every christian church down to modern times. indeed, i doubt if, even now, there is any church which, officially, departs from such a fundamental doctrine of primitive christianity as the existence, in addition to the cosmos with which natural knowledge is conversant, of a world of spirits; that is to say, of intelligent agents, not subject to the physical or mental limitations of humanity, but nevertheless competent to interfere, to an undefined extent, with the ordinary course of both physical and mental phenomena. more especially is this conception fundamental for the authors of the gospels. without the belief that the present world, and particularly that part of it which is constituted by human society, has been given over, since the fall, to the influence of wicked and malignant spiritual beings, governed and directed by a supreme devil--the moral antithesis and enemy of the supreme god--their theory of salvation by the messiah falls to pieces. "to this end was the son of god manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."[ ] the half-hearted religiosity of latter-day christianity may choose to ignore the fact; but it remains none the less true, that he who refuses to accept the demonology of the gospels rejects the revelation of a spiritual world, made in them, as much as if he denied the existence of such a person as jesus of nazareth; and deserves, as much as any one can do, to be ear-marked "infidel" by our gentle shepherds. * * * * * now that which i thought it desirable to make perfectly clear, on my own account, and for the sake of those who find their capacity of belief in the gospel theory of the universe failing them, is the fact, that, in my judgment, the demonology of primitive christianity is totally devoid of foundation; and that no man, who is guided by the rules of investigation which are found to lead to the discovery of truth in other matters, not merely of science, but in the everyday affairs of life, will arrive at any other conclusion. to those who profess to be otherwise guided, i have nothing to say; but to beg them to go their own way and leave me to mine. i think it may be as well to repeat what i have said, over and over again, elsewhere, that _a priori_ notions, about the possibility, or the impossibility, of the existence of a world of spirits, such as that presupposed by genuine christianity, have no influence on my mind. the question for me is purely one of evidence: is the evidence adequate to bear out the theory, or is it not? in my judgment it is not only inadequate, but quite absurdly insufficient. and on that ground, i should feel compelled to reject the theory; even if there were no positive grounds for adopting a totally different conception of the cosmos. for most people, the question of the evidence of the existence of a demonic world, in the long run, resolves itself into that of the trustworthiness of the gospels; first, as to the objective truth of that which they narrate on this topic; second, as to the accuracy of the interpretation which their authors put upon these objective facts. for example, with respect to the gadarene miracle, it is one question whether, at a certain time and place, a raving madman became sane, and a herd of swine rushed into the lake of tiberias; and quite another, whether the cause of these occurrences was the transmigration of certain devils from the man into the pigs. and again, it is one question whether jesus made a long oration on a certain occasion, mentioned in the first gospel; altogether another, whether more or fewer of the propositions contained in the "sermon on the mount" were uttered on that occasion. one may give an affirmative answer to one of each of these pairs of questions and a negative to the other: one may affirm all, or deny all. in considering the historical value of any four documents, proof when they were written and who wrote them is, no doubt, highly important. for if proof exists, that a b c and d wrote them, and that they were intelligent persons, writing independently and without prejudice, about facts within their own knowledge--their statements must needs be worthy of the most attentive consideration.[ ] but, even ecclesiastical tradition does not assert that either "mark" or "luke" wrote from his own knowledge--indeed "luke" expressly asserts he did not. i cannot discover that any competent authority now maintains that the apostle matthew wrote the gospel which passes under his name. and whether the apostle john had, or had not, anything to do with the fourth gospel; and if he had, what his share amounted to; are, as everybody who has attended to these matters knows, questions still hotly disputed, and with regard to which the extant evidence can hardly carry an impartial judge beyond the admission of a possibility this way or that. thus, nothing but a balancing of very dubious probabilities is to be attained by approaching the question from this side. it is otherwise if we make the documents tell their own story: if we study them, as we study fossils, to discover internal evidence, of when they arose, and how they have come to be. that really fruitful line of inquiry has led to the statement and the discussion of what is known as the _synoptic problem_. in the essays (vii.--xi.) which deal with the consequences of the application of the agnostic principle to christian evidences, contained in this volume, there are several references to the results of the attempts which have been made, during the last hundred years, to solve this problem. and, though it has been clearly stated and discussed, in works accessible to, and intelligible by, every english reader,[ ] it may be well that i should here set forth a very brief exposition of the matters of fact out of which the problem has arisen; and of some consequences, which, as i conceive, must be admitted if the facts are accepted. these undisputed and, apparently, indisputable data may be thus stated: i. the three books of which an ancient, but very questionable, ecclesiastical tradition asserts matthew, mark, and luke to be the authors, agree, not only in presenting the same general view, or _synopsis_, of the nature and the order of the events narrated; but, to a remarkable extent, the very words which they employ coincide. ii. nevertheless, there are many equally marked, and some irreconcilable, differences between them. narratives, verbally identical in some portions, diverge more or less in others. the order in which they occur in one, or in two, gospels may be changed in another. in "matthew" and in "luke" events of great importance make their appearance, where the story of "mark" seems to leave no place for them; and, at the beginning and the end of the two former gospels, there is a great amount of matter of which there is no trace in "mark." iii. obvious and highly important differences, in style and substance, separate the three "synoptics," taken together, from the fourth gospel, connected, by ecclesiastical tradition, with the name of the apostle john. in its philosophical proemium; in the conspicuous absence of exorcistic miracles; in the self-assertive theosophy of the long and diffuse monologues, which are so utterly unlike the brief and pregnant utterances of jesus recorded in the synoptics; in the assertion that the crucifixion took place before the passover, which involves the denial, by implication, of the truth of the synoptic story--to mention only a few particulars--the "johannine" gospel presents a wide divergence from the other three. iv. if the mutual resemblances and differences of the synoptic gospels are closely considered, a curious result comes out; namely, that each may be analyzed into four components. the _first_ of these consists of passages, to a greater or less extent verbally identical, which occur in all three gospels. if this triple tradition is separated from the rest it will be found to comprise: _a_. a narrative, of a somewhat broken and anecdotic aspect, which covers the period from the appearance of john the baptist to the discovery of the emptiness of the tomb, on the first day of the week, some six-and-thirty hours after the crucifixion. _b_. an apocalyptic address. _c_. parables and brief discourses, or rather, centos of religious and ethical exhortations and injunctions. the _second_ and the _third_ set of components of each gospel present equally close resemblances to passages, which are found in only one of the other gospels; therefore it may be said that, for them, the tradition is double. the _fourth_ component is peculiar to each gospel; it is a single tradition and has no representative in the others. to put the facts in another way: each gospel is composed of a _threefold tradition_, two _twofold traditions_, and one _peculiar tradition_. if the gospels were the work of totally independent writers, it would follow that there are three witnesses for the statements in the first tradition; two for each of those in the second, and only one for those in the third. v. if the reader will now take up that extremely instructive little book, abbott and rushbrooke's "common tradition" he will easily satisfy himself that "mark" has the remarkable structure just described. almost the whole of this gospel consists of the first component; namely, the _threefold tradition_. but in chap. i. - he will discover an exorcistic story, not to be found in "matthew," but repeated, often word for word, in "luke." this, therefore, belongs to one of the _twofold traditions_. in chap. viii. - , on the other hand, there is a detailed account of the miracle of feeding the four thousand; which is closely repeated in "matthew" xv. - , but is not to be found in "luke." this is an example of the other _twofold tradition_, possible in "mark." finally, the story of the blind man of bethsaida, "mark" viii. - , is _peculiar_ to "mark." vi. suppose that, a standing for the _threefold tradition_, or the matter common to all three gospels; we call the matter common to "mark" and "matthew" only--b; that common to "mark" and "luke" only--c; that common to "matthew" and "luke" only--d; while the peculiar components of "mark," "matthew," and "luke" are severally indicated by e, f, g; then the structure of the gospels may be represented thus: components of "mark" = a + b + c + e. " "matthew" = a + b + d + f. " "luke" = a + c + d + g. vii. the analysis of the synoptic documents need be carried no further than this point, in order to suggest one extremely important, and, apparently unavoidable conclusion; and that is, that their authors were neither three independent witnesses of the things narrated; nor, for the parts of the narrative about which all agree, that is to say, the _threefold tradition_, did they employ independent sources of information. it is simply incredible that each of three independent witnesses of any series of occurrences should tell a story so similar, not only in arrangement and in small details, but in words, to that of each of the others. hence it follows, either that the synoptic writers have, mediately or immediately, copied one from the other: or that the three have drawn from a common source; that is to say, from one arrangement of similar traditions (whether oral or written); though that arrangement may have been extant in three or more, somewhat different versions. viii. the suppositions (_a_) that "mark" had "matthew" and "luke" before him; and (_b_) that either of the two latter was acquainted with the work of the other, would seem to involve some singular consequences. _a_. the second gospel is saturated with the lowest supernaturalism. jesus is exhibited as a wonder-worker and exorcist of the first rank. the earliest public recognition of the messiahship of jesus comes from an "unclean spirit"; he himself is made to testify to the occurrence of the miraculous feeding twice over. the purpose with which "mark" sets out is to show forth jesus as the son of god, and it is suggested, if not distinctly stated, that he acquired this character at his baptism by john. the absence of any reference to the miraculous events of the infancy, detailed by "matthew" and "luke;" or to the appearances after the discovery of the emptiness of the tomb; is unintelligible, if "mark" knew anything about them, or believed in the miraculous conception. the second gospel is no summary: "mark" can find room for the detailed story, irrelevant to his main purpose, of the beheading of john the baptist, and his miraculous narrations are crowded with minute particulars. is it to be imagined that, with the supposed apostolic authority of matthew before him, he could leave out the miraculous conception of jesus and the ascension? further, ecclesiastical tradition would have us believe that mark wrote down his recollections of what peter taught. did peter then omit to mention these matters? did the fact testified by the oldest authority extant, that the first appearance of the risen jesus was to himself seem not worth mentioning? did he really fail to speak of the great position in the church solemnly assigned to him by jesus? the alternative would seem to be the impeachment either of mark's memory, or of his judgment. but mark's memory, is so good that he can recollect how, on the occasion of the stilling of the waves, jesus was asleep "on the cushion," he remembers that the woman with the issue had "spent all she had" on her physicians; that there was not room "even about the door" on a certain occasion at capernaum. and it is surely hard to believe that "mark" should have failed to recollect occurrences of infinitely greater moment, or that he should have deliberately left them out, as things not worthy of mention. _b_. the supposition that "matthew" was acquainted with "luke," or "luke" with "matthew" has equally grave implications. if that be so, the one who used the other could have had but a poor opinion of his predecessor's historical veracity. if, as most experts agree, "luke" is later than "matthew," it is clear that he does not credit "matthew's" account of the infancy; does not believe the "sermon on the mount" as given by matthew was preached; does not believe in the two feeding miracles, to which jesus himself is made to refer; wholly discredits "matthew's" account of the events after the crucifixion; and thinks it not worth while to notice "matthew's" grave admission that "some doubted." ix. none of these troublesome consequences pursue the hypothesis that the _threefold tradition_, in one, or more, greek versions, was extant before either of the canonical synoptic gospels; and that it furnished the fundamental framework of their several narratives. where and when the threefold narrative arose, there is no positive evidence; though it is obviously probable that the traditions it embodies, and perhaps many others, took their rise in palestine and spread thence to asia minor, greece, egypt and italy, in the track of the early missionaries. nor is it less likely that they formed part of the "didaskalia" of the primitive nazarene and christian communities.[ ] x. the interest which attaches to "mark" arises from the fact that it seems to present this early, probably earliest, greek gospel narrative, with least addition, or modification. if, as appears likely from some internal evidences, it was compiled for the use of the christian sodalities in rome; and that it was accepted by them as an adequate account of the life and work of jesus, it is evidence of the most valuable kind respecting their beliefs and the limits of dogma, as conceived by them. in such case, a good roman christian of that epoch might know nothing of the doctrine of the incarnation, as taught by "matthew" and "luke"; still less of the "logos" doctrine of "john"; neither need he have believed anything more than the simple fact of the resurrection. it was open to him to believe it either corporeal or spiritual. he would never have heard of the power of the keys bestowed upon peter; nor have had brought to his mind so much as a suggestion of trinitarian doctrine. he might be a rigidly monotheistic judæo-christian, and consider himself bound by the law: he might be a gentile pauline convert, neither knowing of nor caring for such restrictions. in neither case would he find in "mark" any serious stumbling-block. in fact, persons of all the categories admitted to salvation by justin, in the middle of the second century,[ ] could accept "mark" from beginning to end. it may well be, that, in this wide adaptability, backed by the authority of the metropolitan church, there lies the reason for the fact of the preservation of "mark," notwithstanding its limited and dogmatically colourless character, as compared with the gospels of "luke" and "matthew." xi. "mark," as we have seen, contains a relatively small body of ethical and religious instruction and only a few parables. were these all that existed in the primitive threefold tradition? were none others current in the roman communities, at the time "mark" wrote, supposing he wrote in rome? or, on the other hand, was there extant, as early as the time at which "mark" composed his greek edition of the primitive evangel, one or more collections of parables and teachings, such as those which form the bulk of the twofold tradition, common exclusively to "matthew" and "luke," and are also found in their single traditions? many have assumed this, or these, collections to be identical with, or at any rate based upon, the "logia," of which ecclesiastical tradition says, that they were written in aramaic by matthew, and that everybody translated them as he could. here is the old difficulty again. if such materials were known to "mark," what imaginable reason could he have for not using them? surely displacement of the long episode of john the baptist--even perhaps of the story of the gadarene swine--by portions of the sermon on the mount or by one or two of the beautiful parables in the twofold and single traditions would have been great improvements; and might have been effected, even though "mark" was as much pressed for space as some have imagined. but there is no ground for that imagination; mark has actually found room for four or five parables; why should he not have given the best, if he had known of them? admitting he was the mere _pedissequus et breviator_ of matthew, that even augustine supposed him to be, what could induce him to omit the lord's prayer? whether more or less of the materials of the twofold tradition d, and of the peculiar traditions f and g, were or were not current in some of the communities, as early as, or perhaps earlier than, the triple tradition, it is not necessary for me to discuss; nor to consider those solutions of the synoptic problem which assume that it existed earlier, and was already combined with more or less narrative. those who are working out the final solution of the synoptic problem are taking into account, more than hitherto, the possibility that the widely separated christian communities of palestine, asia minor, egypt, and italy, especially after the jewish war of a.d. - , may have found themselves in possession of very different traditional materials. many circumstances tend to the conclusion that, in asia minor, even the narrative part of the threefold tradition had a formidable rival; and that, around this second narrative, teaching traditions of a totally different order from those in the synoptics, grouped themselves; and, under the influence of converts imbued more or less with the philosophical speculations of the time, eventually took shape in the fourth gospel and its associated literature. xii. but it is unnecessary, and it would be out of place, for me to attempt to do more than indicate the existence of these complex and difficult questions. my purpose has been to make it clear that the synoptic problem must force itself upon every one who studies the gospels with attention; that the broad facts of the case, and some of the consequences deducible from these facts, are just as plain to the simple english reader as they are to the profoundest scholar. one of these consequences is that the threefold tradition presents us with a narrative believed to be historically true, in all its particulars, by the major part, if not the whole, of the christian communities. that narrative is penetrated, from beginning to end, by the demonological beliefs of which the gadarene story is a specimen; and, if the fourth gospel indicates the existence of another and, in some respects, irreconcilably divergent narrative, in which the demonology retires into the background, it is none the less there. therefore, the demonology is an integral and inseparable component of primitive christianity. the farther back the origin of the gospels is dated, the stronger does the certainty of this conclusion grow; and the more difficult it becomes to suppose that jesus himself may not have shared the superstitious beliefs of his disciples. it further follows that those who accept devils, possession, and exorcism as essential elements of their conception of the spiritual world may consistently consider the testimony of the gospels to be unimpeachable in respect of the information they give us respecting other matters which appertain to that world. those who reject the gospel demonology, on the other hand, would seem to be as completely barred, as i feel myself to be, from professing to take the accuracy of that information for granted. if the threefold tradition is wrong about one fundamental topic, it may be wrong about another, while the authority of the single traditions, often mutually contradictory as they are, becomes a vanishing quantity. it really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what i mean by agnosticism, is, for me, the only course open. * * * * * a verdict of "not proven" is undoubtedly unsatisfactory and essentially provisional, so far forth as the subject of the trial is capable of being dealt with by due process of reason. those who are of opinion that the historical realities at the root of christianity, lie beyond the jurisdiction of science, need not be considered. those who are convinced that the evidence is, and must always remain, insufficient to support any definite conclusion, are justified in ignoring the subject. they must be content to put up with that reproach of being mere destroyers, of which strauss speaks. they may say that there are so many problems which are and must remain insoluble, that the "burden of the mystery" "of all this unintelligible world" is not appreciably affected by one more or less. for myself, i must confess that the problem of the origin of such very remarkable historical phenomena as the doctrines, and the social organization, which in their broad features certainly existed, and were in a state of rapid development, within a hundred years of the crucifixion of jesus; and which have steadily prevailed against all rivals, among the most intelligent and civilized nations in the world ever since, is, and always has been, profoundly interesting; and, considering how recent the really scientific study of that problem, and how great the progress made during the last half century in supplying the conditions for a positive solution of the problem, i cannot doubt that the attainment of such a solution is a mere question of time. i am well aware that it has lain far beyond my powers to take any share in this great undertaking. all that i can hope is to have done somewhat towards "the preparation of those who have ceased to be contented with the old and find no satisfaction in half measures": perhaps, also, something towards the lessening of that great proportion of my countrymen, whose eminent characteristic it is that they find "full satisfaction in half measures." t.h.h. hodeslea, eastbourne, _december th, _. footnotes: [ ] d.f. strauss, _der alte und der neue glaube_ ( ), pp. , . [ ] _collected essays_, vol. ii., "on the origin of species" ( ). [ ] john iii. . [ ] not necessarily of more than this. a few centuries ago the twelve most intelligent and impartial men to be found in england, would have independently testified that the sun moves, from east to west, across the heavens every day. [ ] nowhere more concisely and clearly than in dr. sutherland black's article "gospels" in chambers's _encyclopædia_. references are given to the more elaborate discussions of the problem. [ ] those who regard the apocalyptic discourse as a "vaticination after the event" may draw conclusions therefrom as to the date of the gospels in which its several forms occur. but the assumption is surely dangerous, from an apologetic point of view, since it begs the question as to the unhistorical character of this solemn prophecy. [ ] see p. of this volume. contents page i. prologue (_controverted questions_, ). ii. scientific and pseudo-scientific realism [ ] iii. science and pseudo-science [ ] iv. an episcopal trilogy [ ] v. the value of witness to the miraculous [ ] vi. possibilities and impossibilities [ ] vii. agnosticism [ ] viii. agnosticism: a rejoinder [ ] ix. agnosticism and christianity [ ] x. the keepers of the herd of swine [ ] xi. illustrations of mr. gladstone's controversial methods [ ] i: prologue [_controverted questions_, ] le plus grand service qu'on puisse rendre à la science est d'y faire place nette avant d'y rien construire.--cuvier. most of the essays comprised in the present volume have been written during the last six or seven years, without premeditated purpose or intentional connection, in reply to attacks upon doctrines which i hold to be well founded; or in refutation of allegations respecting matters lying within the province of natural knowledge, which i believe to be erroneous; and they bear the mark of their origin in the controversial tone which pervades them. of polemical writing, as of other kinds of warfare, i think it may be said, that it is often useful, sometimes necessary, and always more or less of an evil. it is useful, when it attracts attention to topics which might otherwise be neglected; and when, as does sometimes happen, those who come to see a contest remain to think. it is necessary, when the interests of truth and of justice are at stake. it is an evil, in so far as controversy always tends to degenerate into quarrelling, to swerve from the great issue of what is right and what is wrong to the very small question of who is right and who is wrong. i venture to hope that the useful and the necessary were more conspicuous than the evil attributes of literary militancy, when these papers were first published; but i have had some hesitation about reprinting them. if i may judge by my own taste, few literary dishes are less appetising than cold controversy; moreover, there is an air of unfairness about the presentation of only one side of a discussion, and a flavour of unkindness in the reproduction of "winged words," which, however appropriate at the time of their utterance, would find a still more appropriate place in oblivion. yet, since i could hardly ask those who have honoured me by their polemical attentions to confer lustre on this collection, by permitting me to present their lucubrations along with my own; and since it would be a manifest wrong to them to deprive their, by no means rare, vivacities of language of such justification as they may derive from similar freedoms on my part; i came to the conclusion that my best course was to leave the essays just as they were written;[ ] assuring my honourable adversaries that any heat of which signs may remain was generated, in accordance with the law of the conservation of energy, by the force of their own blows, and has long since been dissipated into space. but, however the polemical coincomitants of these discussions may be regarded--or better, disregarded--there is no doubt either about the importance of the topics of which they treat, or as to the public interest in the "controverted questions" with which they deal. or rather, the controverted question; for disconnected as these pieces may, perhaps, appear to be, they are, in fact, concerned only with different aspects of a single problem, with which thinking men have been occupied, ever since they began seriously to consider the wonderful frame of things in which their lives are set, and to seek for trustworthy guidance among its intricacies. experience speedily taught them that the shifting scenes of the world's stage have a permanent background; that there is order amidst the seeming confusion, and that many events take place according to unchanging rules. to this region of familiar steadiness and customary regularity they gave the name of nature. but, at the same time, their infantile and untutored reason, little more, as yet, than the playfellow of the imagination, led them to believe that this tangible, commonplace, orderly world of nature was surrounded and interpenetrated by another intangible and mysterious world, no more bound by fixed rules than, as they fancied, were the thoughts and passions which coursed through their minds and seemed to exercise an intermittent and capricious rule over their bodies. they attributed to the entities, with which they peopled this dim and dreadful region, an unlimited amount of that power of modifying the course of events of which they themselves possessed a small share, and thus came to regard them as not merely beyond, but above, nature. hence arose the conception of a "supernature" antithetic to "nature"--the primitive dualism of a natural world "fixed in fate" and a supernatural, left to the free play of volition--which has pervaded all later speculation and, for thousands of years, has exercised a profound influence on practice. for it is obvious that, on this theory of the universe, the successful conduct of life must demand careful attention to both worlds; and, if either is to be neglected, it may be safer that it should be nature. in any given contingency, it must doubtless be desirable to know what may be expected to happen in the ordinary course of things; but it must be quite as necessary to have some inkling of the line likely to be taken by supernatural agencies able, and possibly willing, to suspend or reverse that course. indeed, logically developed, the dualistic theory must needs end in almost exclusive attention to supernature, and in trust that its overruling strength will be exerted in favour of those who stand well with its denizens. on the other hand, the lessons of the great schoolmaster, experience, have hardly seemed to accord with this conclusion. they have taught, with considerable emphasis, that it does not answer to neglect nature; and that, on the whole, the more attention paid to her dictates the better men fare. thus the theoretical antithesis brought about a practical antagonism. from the earliest times of which we have any knowledge, naturalism and supernaturalism have consciously, or unconsciously, competed and struggled with one another; and the varying fortunes of the contest are written in the records of the course of civilisation, from those of egypt and babylonia, six thousand years ago, down to those of our own time and people. these records inform us that, so far as men have paid attention to nature, they have been rewarded for their pains. they have developed the arts which have furnished the conditions of civilised existence; and the sciences, which have been a progressive revelation of reality and have afforded the best discipline of the mind in the methods of discovering truth. they have accumulated a vast body of universally accepted knowledge; and the conceptions of man and of society, of morals and of law, based upon that knowledge, are every day more and more, either openly or tacitly, acknowledged to be the foundations of right action. history also tells us that the field of the supernatural has rewarded its cultivators with a harvest, perhaps not less luxuriant, but of a different character. it has produced an almost infinite diversity of religions. these, if we set aside the ethical concomitants upon which natural knowledge also has a claim, are composed of information about supernature; they tell us of the attributes of supernatural beings, of their relations with nature, and of the operations by which their interference with the ordinary course of events can be secured or averted. it does not appear, however, that supernaturalists have attained to any agreement about these matters, or that history indicates a widening of the influence of supernaturalism on practice, with the onward flow of time. on the contrary, the various religions are, to a great extent, mutually exclusive; and their adherents delight in charging each other, not merely with error, but with criminality, deserving and ensuing punishment of infinite severity. in singular contrast with natural knowledge, again, the acquaintance of mankind with the supernatural appears the more extensive and the more exact, and the influence of supernatural doctrines upon conduct the greater, the further back we go in time and the lower the stage of civilisation submitted to investigation. historically, indeed, there would seem to be an inverse relation between supernatural and natural knowledge. as the latter has widened, gained in precision and in trustworthiness, so has the former shrunk, grown vague and questionable; as the one has more and more filled the sphere of action, so has the other retreated into the region of meditation, or vanished behind the screen of mere verbal recognition. whether this difference of the fortunes of naturalism and of supernaturalism is an indication of the progress, or of the regress, of humanity; of a fall from, or an advance towards, the higher life; is a matter of opinion. the point to which i wish to direct attention is that the difference exists and is making itself felt. men are growing to be seriously alive to the fact that the historical evolution of humanity, which is generally, and i venture to think not unreasonably, regarded as progress, has been, and is being, accompanied by a co-ordinate elimination of the supernatural from its originally large occupation of men's thoughts. the question--how far is this process to go?--is, in my apprehension, the controverted question of our time. * * * * * controversy on this matter--prolonged, bitter, and fought out with the weapons of the flesh, as well as with those of the spirit--is no new thing to englishmen. we have been more or less occupied with it these five hundred years. and, during that time, we have made attempts to establish a _modus vivendi_ between the antagonists, some of which have had a world-wide influence; though, unfortunately, none have proved universally and permanently satisfactory. in the fourteenth century, the controverted question among us was, whether certain portions of the supernaturalism of mediæval christianity were well-founded. john wicliff proposed a solution of the problem which, in the course of the following two hundred years, acquired wide popularity and vast historical importance: lollards, hussites, lutherans, calvinists, zwinglians, socinians, and anabaptists, whatever their disagreements, concurred in the proposal to reduce the supernaturalism of christianity within the limits sanctioned by the scriptures. none of the chiefs of protestantism called in question either the supernatural origin and infallible authority of the bible, or the exactitude of the account of the supernatural world given in its pages. in fact, they could not afford to entertain any doubt about these points, since the infallible bible was the fulcrum of the lever with which they were endeavouring to upset the chair of st. peter. the "freedom of private judgment" which they proclaimed, meant no more, in practice, than permission to themselves to make free with the public judgment of the roman church, in respect of the canon and of the meaning to be attached to the words of the canonical books. private judgment--that is to say, reason--was (theoretically, at any rate) at liberty to decide what books were and what were not to take the rank of "scripture"; and to determine the sense of any passage in such books. but this sense, once ascertained to the mind of the sectary, was to be taken for pure truth--for the very word of god. the controversial efficiency of the principle of biblical infallibility lay in the fact that the conservative adversaries of the reformers were not in a position to contravene it without entangling themselves in serious difficulties; while, since both papists and protestants agreed in taking efficient measures to stop the mouths of any more radical critics, these did not count. the impotence of their adversaries, however, did not remove the inherent weakness of the position of the protestants. the dogma of the infallibility of the bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the pope. if the former is held by "faith," then the latter may be. if the latter is to be accepted, or rejected, by private judgment, why not the former? even if the bible could be proved anywhere to assert its own infallibility, the value of that self-assertion to those who dispute the point is not obvious. on the other hand, if the infallibility of the bible was rested on that of a "primitive church," the admission that the "church" was formerly infallible was awkward in the extreme for those who denied its present infallibility. moreover, no sooner was the protestant principle applied to practice, than it became evident that even an infallible text, when manipulated by private judgment, will impartially countenance contradictory deductions; and furnish forth creeds and confessions as diverse as the quality and the information of the intellects which exercise, and the prejudices and passions which sway, such judgments. every sect, confident in the derivative infallibility of its wire-drawing of infallible materials, was ready to supply its contingent of martyrs; and to enable history, once more, to illustrate the truth, that steadfastness under persecution says much for the sincerity and still more for the tenacity, of the believer, but very little for the objective truth of that which he believes. no martyrs have sealed their faith with their blood more steadfastly than the anabaptists. last, but not least, the protestant principle contained within itself the germs of the destruction of the finality, which the lutheran, calvinistic, and other protestant churches fondly imagined they had reached. since their creeds were professedly based on the canonical scriptures, it followed that, in the long run, whoso settled the canon defined the creed. if the private judgment of luther might legitimately conclude that the epistle of james was contemptible, while the epistles of paul contained the very essence of christianity, it must be permissible for some other private judgment, on as good or as bad grounds, to reverse these conclusions; the critical process which excluded the apocrypha could not be barred, at any rate by people who rejected the authority of the church, from extending its operations to daniel, the canticles, and ecclesiastes; nor, having got so far, was it easy to allege any good ground for staying the further progress of criticism. in fact, the logical development of protestantism could not fail to lay the authority of the scriptures at the feet of reason; and, in the hands of latitudinarian and rationalistic theologians, the despotism of the bible was rapidly converted into an extremely limited monarchy. treated with as much respect as ever, the sphere of its practical authority was minimised; and its decrees were valid only so far as they were countersigned by common sense, the responsible minister. the champions of protestantism are much given to glorify the reformation of the sixteenth century as the emancipation of reason; but it may be doubted if their contention has any solid ground; while there is a good deal of evidence to show, that aspirations after intellectual freedom had nothing whatever to do with the movement. dante, who struck the papacy as hard blows as wicliff; wicliff himself and luther himself, when they began their work; were far enough from any intention of meddling with even the most irrational of the dogmas of mediæval supernaturalism. from wicliff to socinus, or even to münzer, rothmann, and john of leyden, i fail to find a trace of any desire to set reason free. the most that can be discovered is a proposal to change masters. from being the slave of the papacy the intellect was to become the serf of the bible; or, to speak more accurately, of somebody's interpretation of the bible, which, rapidly shifting its attitude from the humility of a private judgment to the arrogant cæsaro-papistry of a state-enforced creed, had no more hesitation about forcibly extinguishing opponent private judgments and judges, than had the old-fashioned pontiff-papistry. it was the iniquities, and not the irrationalities, of the papal system that lay at the bottom of the revolt of the laity; which was, essentially, an attempt to shake off the intolerable burden of certain practical deductions from a supernaturalism in which everybody, in principle, acquiesced. what was the gain to intellectual freedom of abolishing transubstantiation, image worship, indulgences, ecclesiastical infallibility; if consubstantiation, real-unreal presence mystifications, the bibliolatry, the "inner-light" pretensions, and the demonology, which are fruits of the same supernaturalistic tree, remained in enjoyment of the spiritual and temporal support of a new infallibility? one does not free a prisoner by merely scraping away the rust from his shackles. it will be asked, perhaps, was not the reformation one of the products of that great outbreak of many-sided free mental activity included under the general head of the renascence? melanchthon, ulrich von hutten, beza, were they not all humanists? was not the arch-humanist, erasmus, fautor-in-chief of the reformation, until he got frightened and basely deserted it? from the language of protestant historians, it would seem that they often forget that reformation and protestantism are by no means convertible terms. there were plenty of sincere and indeed zealous reformers, before, during, and after the birth and growth of protestantism, who would have nothing to do with it. assuredly, the rejuvenescence of science and of art; the widening of the field of nature by geographical and astronomical discovery; the revelation of the noble ideals of antique literature by the revival of classical learning; the stir of thought, throughout all classes of society, by the printers' work, loosened traditional bonds and weakened the hold of mediæval supernaturalism. in the interests of liberal culture and of national welfare, the humanists were eager to lend a hand to anything which tended to the discomfiture of their sworn enemies, the monks, and they willingly supported every movement in the direction of weakening ecclesiastical interference with civil life. but the bond of a common enemy was the only real tie between the humanist and the protestant; their alliance was bound to be of short duration, and, sooner or later, to be replaced by internecine warfare. the goal of the humanists, whether they were aware of it or not, was the attainment of the complete intellectual freedom of the antique philosopher, than which nothing could be more abhorrent to a luther, a calvin, a beza, or a zwingli. the key to the comprehension of the conduct of erasmus, seems to me to lie in the clear apprehension of this fact. that he was a man of many weaknesses may be true; in fact, he was quite aware of them and professed himself no hero. but he never deserted that reformatory movement which he originally contemplated; and it was impossible he should have deserted the specifically protestant reformation in which he never took part. he was essentially a theological whig, to whom radicalism was as hateful as it is to all whigs; or, to borrow a still more appropriate comparison from modern times, a broad churchman who refused to enlist with either the high church or the low church zealots, and paid the penalty of being called coward, time-server and traitor, by both. yet really there is a good deal in his pathetic remonstrance that he does not see why he is bound to become a martyr for that in which he does not believe; and a fair consideration of the circumstances and the consequences of the protestant reformation seems to me to go a long way towards justifying the course he adopted. few men had better means of being acquainted with the condition of europe; none could be more competent to gauge the intellectual shallowness and self-contradiction of the protestant criticism of catholic doctrine; and to estimate, at its proper value, the fond imagination that the waters let out by the renascence would come to rest amidst the blind alleys of the new ecclesiasticism. the bastard, whilom poor student and monk, become the familiar of bishops and princes, at home in all grades of society, could not fail to be aware of the gravity of the social position, of the dangers imminent from the profligacy and indifference of the ruling classes, no less than from the anarchical tendencies of the people who groaned under their oppression. the wanderer who had lived in germany, in france, in england, in italy, and who counted many of the best and most influential men in each country among his friends, was not likely to estimate wrongly the enormous forces which were still at the command of the papacy. bad as the churchmen might be, the statesmen were worse; and a person of far more sanguine temperament than erasmus might have seen no hope for the future, except in gradually freeing the ubiquitous organisation of the church from the corruptions which alone, as he imagined, prevented it from being as beneficent as it was powerful. the broad tolerance of the scholar and man of the world might well be revolted by the ruffianism, however genial, of one great light of protestantism, and the narrow fanaticism, however learned and logical, of others; and to a cautious thinker, by whom, whatever his shortcomings, the ethical ideal of the christian evangel was sincerely prized, it really was a fair question, whether it was worth while to bring about a political and social deluge, the end of which no mortal could foresee, for the purpose of setting up lutheran, zwinglian, and other peterkins, in the place of the actual claimant to the reversion of the spiritual wealth of the galilean fisherman. let us suppose that, at the beginning of the lutheran and zwinglian movement, a vision of its immediate consequences had been granted to erasmus; imagine that to the spectre of the fierce outbreak of anabaptist communism, which opened the apocalypse, had succeeded, in shadowy procession, the reign of terror and of spoliation in england, with the judicial murders of his friends, more and fisher; the bitter tyranny of evangelistic clericalism in geneva and in scotland; the long agony of religious wars, persecutions, and massacres, which devastated france and reduced germany almost to savagery; finishing with the spectacle of lutheranism in its native country sunk into mere dead erastian formalism, before it was a century old; while jesuitry triumphed over protestantism in three-fourths of europe, bringing in its train a recrudescence of all the corruptions erasmus and his friends sought to abolish; might not he have quite honestly thought this a somewhat too heavy price to pay for protestantism; more especially, since no one was in a better position than himself to know how little the dogmatic foundation of the new confessions was able to bear the light which the inevitable progress of humanistic criticism would throw upon them? as the wiser of his contemporaries saw, erasmus was, at heart, neither protestant nor papist, but an "independent christian"; and, as the wiser of his modern biographers have discerned, he was the precursor, not of sixteenth century reform, but of eighteenth century "enlightenment"; a sort of broad-church voltaire, who held by his "independent christianity" as stoutly as voltaire by his deism. in fact, the stream of the renascence, which bore erasmus along, left protestantism stranded amidst the mudbanks of its articles and creeds: while its true course became visible to all men, two centuries later. by this time, those in whom the movement of the renascence was incarnate became aware what spirit they were of; and they attacked supernaturalism in its biblical stronghold, defended by protestants and romanists with equal zeal. in the eyes of the "patriarch," ultramontanism, jansenism, and calvinism were merely three persons of the one "infâme" which it was the object of his life to crush. if he hated one more than another, it was probably the last; while d'holbach, and the extreme left of the free-thinking host, were disposed to show no more mercy to deism and pantheism. the sceptical insurrection of the eighteenth century made a terrific noise and frightened not a few worthy people out of their wits; but cool judges might have foreseen, at the outset, that the efforts of the later rebels were no more likely than those of the earlier, to furnish permanent resting-places for the spirit of scientific inquiry. however worthy of admiration may be the acuteness, the common sense, the wit, the broad humanity, which abound in the writings of the best of the free-thinkers; there is rarely much to be said for their work as an example of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult investigation. i do not think any impartial judge will assert that, from this point of view, they are much better than their adversaries. it must be admitted that they share to the full the fatal weakness of _a priori_ philosophising, no less than the moral frivolity common to their age; while a singular want of appreciation of history, as the record of the moral and social evolution of the human race, permitted them to resort to preposterous theories of imposture, in order to account for the religious phenomena which are natural products of that evolution. for the most part, the romanist and protestant adversaries of the free-thinkers met them with arguments no better than their own; and with vituperation, so far inferior that it lacked the wit. but one great christian apologist fairly captured the guns of the free-thinking array, and turned their batteries upon themselves. speculative "infidelity" of the eighteenth century type was mortally wounded by the _analogy_; while the progress of the historical and psychological sciences brought to light the important part played by the mythopoeic faculty; and, by demonstrating the extreme readiness of men to impose upon themselves, rendered the calling in of sacerdotal cooperation, in most cases, a superfluity. again, as in the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, social and political influences came into play. the free-thinking _philosophes_, who objected to rousseau's sentimental religiosity almost as much as they did to _l'infâme_, were credited with the responsibility for all the evil deeds of rousseau's jacobin disciples, with about as much justification as wicliff was held responsible for the peasants' revolt, or luther for the _bauern-krieg_. in england, though our _ancien régime_ was not altogether lovely, the social edifice was never in such a bad way as in france; it was still capable of being repaired; and our forefathers, very wisely, preferred to wait until that operation could be safely performed, rather than pull it all down about their ears, in order to build a philosophically planned house on brand-new speculative foundations. under these circumstances, it is not wonderful that, in this country, practical men preferred the gospel of wesley and whitfield to that of jean jacques; while enough of the old leaven of puritanism remained to ensure the favour and support of a large number of religious men to a revival of evangelical supernaturalism. thus, by degrees, the free-thinking, or the indifference, prevalent among us in the first half of the eighteenth century, was replaced by a strong supernaturalistic reaction, which submerged the work of the free-thinkers; and even seemed, for a time, to have arrested the naturalistic movement of which that work was an imperfect indication. yet, like lollardry, four centuries earlier, free-thought merely took to running underground, safe, sooner or later, to return to the surface. * * * * * my memory, unfortunately, carries me back to the fourth decade of the nineteenth century, when the evangelical flood had a little abated and the tops of certain mountains were soon to appear, chiefly in the neighbourhood of oxford; but when nevertheless, bibliolatry was rampant; when church and chapel alike proclaimed, as the oracles of god, the crude assumptions of the worst informed and, in natural sequence, the most presumptuously bigoted, of all theological schools. in accordance with promises made on my behalf, but certainly without my authorisation, i was very early taken to hear "sermons in the vulgar tongue." and vulgar enough often was the tongue in which some preacher, ignorant alike of literature, of history, of science, and even of theology, outside that patronised by his own narrow school, poured forth, from the safe entrenchment of the pulpit, invectives against those who deviated from his notion of orthodoxy. from dark allusions to "sceptics" and "infidels," i became aware of the existence of people who trusted in carnal reason; who audaciously doubted that the world was made in six natural days, or that the deluge was universal; perhaps even went so far as to question the literal accuracy of the story of eve's temptation, or of balaam's ass; and, from the horror of the tones in which they were mentioned, i should have been justified in drawing the conclusion that these rash men belonged to the criminal classes. at the same time, those who were more directly responsible for providing me with the knowledge essential to the right guidance of life (and who sincerely desired to do so), imagined they were discharging that most sacred duty by impressing upon my childish mind the necessity, on pain of reprobation in this world and damnation in the next, of accepting, in the strict and literal sense, every statement contained in the protestant bible. i was told to believe, and i did believe, that doubt about any of them was a sin, not less reprehensible than a moral delict. i suppose that, out of a thousand of my contemporaries, nine hundred, at least, had their minds systematically warped and poisoned, in the name of the god of truth, by like discipline. i am sure that, even a score of years later, those who ventured to question the exact historical accuracy of any part of the old testament and _a fortiori_ of the gospels, had to expect a pitiless shower of verbal missiles, to say nothing of the other disagreeable consequences which visit those who, in any way, run counter to that chaos of prejudices called public opinion. my recollections of this time have recently been revived by the perusal of a remarkable document,[ ] signed by as many as thirty-eight out of the twenty odd thousand clergymen of the established church. it does not appear that the signataries are officially accredited spokesmen of the ecclesiastical corporation to which they belong; but i feel bound to take their word for it, that they are "stewards of the lord, who have received the holy ghost," and, therefore, to accept this memorial as evidence that, though the evangelicism of my early days may be deposed from its place of power, though so many of the colleagues of the thirty-eight even repudiate the title of protestants, yet the green bay tree of bibliolatry flourishes as it did sixty years ago. and, as in those good old times, whoso refuses to offer incense to the idol is held to be guilty of "a dishonour to god," imperilling his salvation. it is to the credit of the perspicacity of the memorialists that they discern the real nature of the controverted question of the age. they are awake to the unquestionable fact that, if scripture has been discovered "not to be worthy of unquestioning belief," faith "in the supernatural itself" is, so far, undermined. and i may congratulate myself upon such weighty confirmation of an opinion in which i have had the fortune to anticipate them. but whether it is more to the credit of the courage, than to the intelligence, of the thirty-eight that they should go on to proclaim that the canonical scriptures of the old and new testaments "declare incontrovertibly the actual historical truth in all records, both of past events and of the delivery of predictions to be thereafter fulfilled," must be left to the coming generation to decide. the interest which attaches to this singular document will, i think, be based by most thinking men, not upon what it is, but upon that of which it is a sign. it is an open secret, that the memorial is put forth as a counterblast to a manifestation of opinion of a contrary character, on the part of certain members of the same ecclesiastical body, who therefore have, as i suppose, an equal right to declare themselves "stewards of the lord and recipients of the holy ghost." in fact, the stream of tendency towards naturalism, the course of which i have briefly traced, has, of late years, flowed so strongly, that even the churches have begun, i dare not say to drift, but, at any rate, to swing at their moorings. within the pale of the anglican establishment, i venture to doubt, whether, at this moment, there are as many thorough-going defenders of "plenary inspiration" as there were timid questioners of that doctrine, half a century ago. commentaries, sanctioned by the highest authority, give up the "actual historical truth" of the cosmogonical and diluvial narratives. university professors of deservedly high repute accept the critical decision that the hexateuch is a compilation, in which the share of moses, either as author or as editor, is not quite so clearly demonstrable as it might be; highly placed divines tell us that the pre-abrahamic scripture narratives may be ignored; that the book of daniel may be regarded as a patriotic romance of the second century b.c.; that the words of the writer of the fourth gospel are not always to be distinguished from those which he puts into the mouth of jesus. conservative, but conscientious, revisers decide that whole passages, some of dogmatic and some of ethical importance, are interpolations. an uneasy sense of the weakness of the dogma of biblical infallibility seems to be at the bottom of a prevailing tendency once more to substitute the authority of the "church" for that of the bible. in my old age, it has happened to me to be taken to task for regarding christianity as a "religion of a book" as gravely as, in my youth, i should have been reprehended for doubting that proposition. it is a no less interesting symptom that the state church seems more and more anxious to repudiate all complicity with the principles of the protestant reformation and to call itself "anglo-catholic." inspiration, deprived of its old intelligible sense, is watered down into a mystification. the scriptures are, indeed, inspired; but they contain a wholly undefined and indefinable "human element"; and this unfortunate intruder is converted into a sort of biblical whipping boy. whatsoever scientific investigation, historical or physical, proves to be erroneous, the "human element" bears the blame; while the divine inspiration of such statements, as by their nature are out of reach of proof or disproof, is still asserted with all the vigour inspired by conscious safety from attack. though the proposal to treat the bible "like any other book" which caused so much scandal, forty years ago, may not yet be generally accepted, and though bishop colenso's criticisms may still lie, formally, under ecclesiastical ban, yet the church has not wholly turned a deaf ear to the voice of the scientific tempter; and many a coy divine, while "crying i will ne'er consent," has consented to the proposals of that scientific criticism which the memorialists renounce and denounce. a humble layman, to whom it would seem the height of presumption to assume even the unconsidered dignity of a "steward of science," may well find this conflict of apparently equal ecclesiastical authorities perplexing--suggestive, indeed, of the wisdom of postponing attention to either, until the question of precedence between them is settled. and this course will probably appear the more advisable, the more closely the fundamental position of the memorialists is examined. "no opinion of the fact or form of divine revelation, founded on literary criticism [and i suppose i may add historical, or physical, criticism] of the scriptures themselves, can be admitted to interfere with the traditionary testimony of the church, when that has been once ascertained and verified by appeal to antiquity."[ ] grant that it is "the traditionary testimony of the church" which guarantees the canonicity of each and all of the books of the old and new testaments. grant also that canonicity means infallibility; yet, according to the thirty-eight, this "traditionary testimony" has to be "ascertained and verified by appeal to antiquity." but "ascertainment and verification" are purely intellectual processes, which must be conducted according to the strict rules of scientific investigation, or be self-convicted of worthlessness. moreover, before we can set about the appeal to "antiquity," the exact sense of that usefully vague term must be defined by similar means. "antiquity" may include any number of centuries, great or small; and whether "antiquity" is to comprise the council of trent, or to stop a little beyond that of nicæa, or to come to an end in the time of irenænus, or in that of justin martyr, are knotty questions which can be decided, if at all, only by those critical methods which the signataries treat so cavalierly. and yet the decision of these questions is fundamental, for as the limits of the canonical scriptures vary, so may the dogmas deduced from them require modification. christianity is one thing, if the fourth gospel, the epistle to the hebrews, the pastoral epistles, and the apocalypse are canonical and (by the hypothesis) infallibly true; and another thing, if they are not. as i have already said, whoso defines the canon defines the creed. now it is quite certain with respect to some of these books, such as the apocalypse and the epistle to the hebrews, that the eastern and the western church differed in opinion for centuries; and yet neither the one branch nor the other can have considered its judgment infallible, since they eventually agreed to a transaction by which each gave up its objection to the book patronised by the other. moreover, the "fathers" argue (in a more or less rational manner) about the canonicity of this or that book, and are by no means above producing evidence, internal and external, in favour of the opinions they advocate. in fact, imperfect as their conceptions of scientific method may be, they not unfrequently used it to the best of their ability. thus it would appear that though science, like nature, may be driven out with a fork, ecclesiastical or other, yet she surely comes back again. the appeal to "antiquity" is, in fact, an appeal to science, first to define what antiquity is; secondly, to determine what "antiquity," so defined, says about canonicity; thirdly, to prove that canonicity means infallibility. and when science, largely in the shape of the abhorred "criticism," has answered this appeal, and has shown that "antiquity" used her own methods, however clumsily and imperfectly, she naturally turns round upon the appellants, and demands that they should show cause why, in these days, science should not resume the work the ancients did so imperfectly, and carry it out efficiently. but no such cause can be shown. if "antiquity" permitted eusebius, origen, tertullian, irenæus, to argue for the reception of this book into the canon and the rejection of that, upon rational grounds, "antiquity" admitted the whole principle of modern criticism. if irenæus produces ridiculous reasons for limiting the gospels to four, it was open to any one else to produce good reasons (if he had them) for cutting them down to three, or increasing them to five. if the eastern branch of the church had a right to reject the apocalypse and accept the epistle to the hebrews, and the western an equal right to accept the apocalypse and reject the epistle, down to the fourth century, any other branch would have an equal right, on cause shown, to reject both, or, as the catholic church afterwards actually did, to accept both. thus i cannot but think that the thirty-eight are hoist with their own petard. their "appeal to antiquity" turns out to be nothing but a round-about way of appealing to the tribunal, the jurisdiction of which they affect to deny. having rested the world of christian supernaturalism on the elephant of biblical infallibility, and furnished the elephant with standing ground on the tortoise of "antiquity," they, like their famous hindoo analogue, have been content to look no further; and have thereby been spared the horror of discovering that the tortoise rests on a grievously fragile construction, to a great extent the work of that very intellectual operation which they anathematise and repudiate. moreover, there is another point to be considered. it is of course true that a christian church (whether the christian church, or not, depends on the connotation of the definite article) existed before the christian scriptures; and that the infallibility of these depends upon the infallibility of the judgment of the persons who selected the books of which they are composed, out of the mass of literature current among the early christians. the logical acumen of augustine showed him that the authority of the gospel he preached must rest on that of the church to which he belonged.[ ] but it is no less true that the hebrew and the septuagint versions of most, if not all, of the old testament books existed before the birth of jesus of nazareth; and that their divine authority is presupposed by, and therefore can hardly depend upon, the religious body constituted by his disciples. as everybody knows, the very conception of a "christ" is purely jewish. the validity of the argument from the messianic prophecies vanishes unless their infallible authority is granted; and, as a matter of fact, whether we turn to the gospels, the epistles, or the writings of the early apologists, the jewish scriptures are recognised as the highest court of appeal of the christian. the proposal to cite christian "antiquity" as a witness to the infallibility of the old testament, when its own claims to authority vanish, if certain propositions contained in the old testament are erroneous, hardly satisfies the requirements of lay logic. it is as if a claimant to be sole legatee, under another kind of testament, should offer his assertion as sufficient evidence of the validity of the will. and, even were not such a circular, or rather rotatory, argument, that the infallibility of the bible is testified by the infallible church, whose infallibility is testified by the infallible bible, too absurd for serious consideration, it remains permissible to ask, where and when the church, during the period of its infallibility, as limited by anglican dogmatic necessities, has officially decreed the "actual historical truth of all records" in the old testament? was augustine heretical when he denied the actual historical truth of the record of the creation? father suarez, standing on later roman tradition, may have a right to declare that he was; but it does not lie in the mouth of those who limit their appeal to that early "antiquity," in which augustine played so great a part, to say so. * * * * * among the watchers of the course of the world of thought, some view with delight and some with horror, the recrudescence of supernaturalism which manifests itself among us, in shapes ranged along the whole flight of steps, which, in this case, separates the sublime from the ridiculous--from neo-catholicism and inner-light mysticism, at the top, to unclean things, not worthy of mention in the same breath, at the bottom. in my poor opinion, the importance of these manifestations is often greatly over-estimated. the extant forms of supernaturalism have deep roots in human nature, and will undoubtedly die hard; but, in these latter days, they have to cope with an enemy whose full strength is only just beginning to be put out, and whose forces, gathering strength year by year, are hemming them round on every side. this enemy is science, in the acceptation of systematized natural knowledge, which, during the last two centuries, has extended those methods of investigation, the worth of which is confirmed by daily appeal to nature, to every region in which the supernatural has hitherto been recognised. when scientific historical criticism reduced the annals of heroic greece and of regal rome to the level of fables; when the unity of authorship of the _iliad_ was successfully assailed by scientific literary criticism; when scientific physical criticism, after exploding the geocentric theory of the universe and reducing the solar system itself to one of millions of groups of like cosmic specks, circling, at unimaginable distances from one another through infinite space, showed the supernaturalistic theories of the duration of the earth and of life upon it, to be as inadequate as those of its relative dimensions and importance had been; it needed no prophetic gift to see that, sooner or later, the jewish and the early christian records would be treated in the same manner; that the authorship of the hexateuch and of the gospels would be as severely tested; and that the evidence in favour of the veracity of many of the statements found in the scriptures would have to be strong indeed, if they were to be opposed to the conclusions of physical science. in point of fact, so far as i can discover, no one competent to judge of the evidential strength of these conclusions, ventures now to say that the biblical accounts of the creation and of the deluge are true in the natural sense of the words of the narratives. the most modern reconcilers venture upon is to affirm, that some quite different sense may he put upon the words; and that this non-natural sense may, with a little trouble, be manipulated into some sort of noncontradiction of scientific truth. my purpose, in the essay (xvi.) which treats of the narrative of the deluge, was to prove, by physical criticism, that no such event as that described ever took place; to exhibit the untrustworthy character of the narrative demonstrated by literary criticism; and, finally, to account for its origin, by producing a form of those ancient legends of pagan chaldæa, from which the biblical compilation is manifestly derived. i have yet to learn that the main propositions of this essay can be seriously challenged. in the essays (ii., iii.) on the narrative of the creation, i have endeavoured to controvert the assertion that modern science supports, either the interpretation put upon it by mr. gladstone, or any interpretation which is compatible with the general sense of the narrative, quite apart from particular details. the first chapter of genesis teaches the supernatural creation of the present forms of life; modern science teaches that they have come about by evolution. the first chapter of genesis teaches the successive origin--firstly, of all the plants, secondly, of all the aquatic and aerial animals, thirdly, of all the terrestrial animals, which now exist--during distinct intervals of time; modern science teaches that, throughout all the duration of an immensely long past so far as we have any adequate knowledge of it (that is as far back as the silurian epoch), plants, aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial animals have co-existed; that the earliest known are unlike those which at present exist; and that the modern species have come into existence as the last terms of a series, the members of which have appeared one after another. thus, far from confirming the account in genesis, the results of modern science, so far as they go, are in principle, as in detail, hopelessly discordant with it. yet, if the pretensions to infallibility set up, not by the ancient hebrew writings themselves, but by the ecclesiastical champions and friends from whom they may well pray to be delivered, thus shatter themselves against the rock of natural knowledge, in respect of the two most important of all events, the origin of things and the palingenesis of terrestrial life, what historical credit dare any serious thinker attach to the narratives of the fabrication of eve, of the fall, of the commerce between the _bene elohim_ and the daughters of men, which lie between the creational and the diluvial legends? and, if these are to lose all historical worth, what becomes of the infallibility of those who, according to the later scriptures, have accepted them, argued from them, and staked far-reaching dogmatic conclusions upon their historical accuracy? it is the merest ostrich policy for contemporary ecclesiasticism to try to hide its hexateuchal head--in the hope that the inseparable connection of its body with pre-abrahamic legends may be overlooked. the question will still be asked, if the first nine chapters of the pentateuch are unhistorical, how is the historical accuracy of the remainder to be guaranteed? what more intrinsic claim has the story of the exodus than that of the deluge, to belief? if god did not walk in the garden of eden, how can we be assured that he spoke from sinai? * * * * * in some other of the following essays (ix., x., xi., xii., xiv., xv.) i have endeavoured to show that sober and well-founded physical and literary criticism plays no less havoc with the doctrine that the canonical scriptures of the new testament "declare incontrovertibly the actual historical truth in all records." we are told that the gospels contain a true revelation of the spiritual world--a proposition which, in one sense of the word "spiritual," i should not think it necessary to dispute. but, when it is taken to signify that everything we are told about the world of spirits in these books is infallibly true; that we are bound to accept the demonology which constitutes an inseparable part of their teaching; and to profess belief in a supernaturalism as gross as that of any primitive people--it is at any rate permissible to ask why? science may be unable to define the limits of possibility, but it cannot escape from the moral obligation to weigh the evidence in favour of any alleged wonderful occurrence; and i have endeavoured to show that the evidence for the gadarene miracle is altogether worthless. we have simply three, partially discrepant, versions of a story, about the primitive form, the origin, and the authority for which we know absolutely nothing. but the evidence in favour of the gadarene miracle is as good as that for any other. elsewhere, i have pointed out that it is utterly beside the mark to declaim against these conclusions on the ground of their asserted tendency to deprive mankind of the consolations of the christian faith, and to destroy the foundations of morality; still less to brand them with the question-begging vituperative appellation of "infidelity." the point is not whether they are wicked; but, whether, from the point of view of scientific method, they are irrefragably true. if they are, they will be accepted in time, whether they are wicked, or not wicked. nature, so far as we have been able to attain to any insight into her ways, recks little about consolation and makes for righteousness by very round-about paths. and, at any rate, whatever may be possible for other people, it is becoming less and less possible for the man who puts his faith in scientific methods of ascertaining truth, and is accustomed to have that faith justified by daily experience, to be consciously false to his principle in any matter. but the number of such men, driven into the use of scientific methods of inquiry and taught to trust them, by their education, their daily professional and business needs, is increasing and will continually increase. the phraseology of supernaturalism may remain on men's lips, but in practice they are naturalists. the magistrate who listens with devout attention to the precept "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" on sunday, on monday, dismisses, as intrinsically absurd, a charge of bewitching a cow brought against some old woman; the superintendent of a lunatic asylum who substituted exorcism for rational modes of treatment would have but a short tenure of office; even parish clerks doubt the utility of prayers for rain, so long as the wind is in the east; and an outbreak of pestilence sends men, not to the churches, but to the drains. in spite of prayers for the success of our arms and _te deums_ for victory, our real faith is in big battalions and keeping our powder dry; in knowledge of the science of warfare; in energy, courage, and discipline. in these, as in all other practical affairs, we act on the aphorism "_laborare est orare_"; we admit that intelligent work is the only acceptable worship; and that, whether there be a supernature or not, our business is with nature. * * * * * it is important to note that the principle of the scientific naturalism of the latter half of the nineteenth century, in which the intellectual movement of the renascence has culminated, and which was first clearly formulated by descartes, leads not to the denial of the existence of any supernature;[ ] but simply to the denial of the validity of the evidence adduced in favour of this, or of that, extant form of supernaturalism. looking at the matter from the most rigidly scientific point of view, the assumption that, amidst the myriads of worlds scattered through endless space, there can be no intelligence, as much greater than man's as his is greater than a blackbeetle's; no being endowed with powers of influencing the course of nature as much greater than his, as his is greater than a snail's seems to me not merely baseless, but impertinent. without stepping beyond the analogy of that which is known, it is easy to people the cosmos with entities, in ascending scale, until we reach something practically indistinguishable from omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. if our intelligence can, in some matters, surely reproduce the past of thousands of years ago and anticipate the future, thousands of years hence, it is clearly within the limits of possibility that some greater intellect, even of the same order, may be able to mirror the whole past and the whole future; if the universe is penetrated by a medium of such a nature that a magnetic needle on the earth answers to a commotion in the sun, an omnipresent agent is also conceivable; if our insignificant knowledge gives us some influence over events, practical omniscience may confer indefinably greater power. finally, if evidence that a thing may be, were equivalent to proof that it is, analogy might justify the construction of a naturalistic theology and demonology not less wonderful than the current supernatural; just as it might justify the peopling of mars, or of jupiter, with living forms to which terrestrial biology offers no parallel. until human life is longer and the duties of the present press less heavily, i do not think that wise men will occupy themselves with jovian, or martian, natural history; and they will probably agree to a verdict of "not proven" in respect of naturalistic theology, taking refuge in that agnostic confession, which appears to me to be the only position for people who object to say that they know what they are quite aware they do not know. as to the interests of morality, i am disposed to think that if mankind could be got to act up to this last principle in every relation of life, a reformation would be effected such as the world has not yet seen; an approximation to the millennium, such as no supernaturalistic religion has ever yet succeeded, or seems likely ever to succeed, in effecting. * * * * * i have hitherto dwelt upon scientific naturalism chiefly in its critical and destructive aspect. but the present incarnation of the spirit of the renascence differs from its predecessor in the eighteenth century, in that it builds up, as well as pulls down. that of which it has laid the foundation, of which it is already raising the superstructure, is the doctrine of evolution. but so many strange misconceptions are current about this doctrine--it is attacked on such false grounds by its enemies, and made to cover so much that is disputable by some of its friends, that i think it well to define as clearly as i can, what i do not and what i do understand by the doctrine. i have nothing to say to any "philosophy of evolution." attempts to construct such a philosophy may be as useful, nay, even as admirable, as was the attempt of descartes to get at a theory of the universe by the same _a priori_ road; but, in my judgment, they are as premature. nor, for this purpose, have i to do with any theory of the "origin of species," much as i value that which is known as the darwinian theory. that the doctrine of natural selection presupposes evolution is quite true; but it is not true that evolution necessarily implies natural selection. in fact, evolution might conceivably have taken place without the development of groups possessing the characters of species. for me, the doctrine of evolution is no speculation, but a generalisation of certain facts, which may be observed by any one who will take the necessary trouble. these facts are those which are classed by biologists under the heads of embryology and of palæontology. embryology proves that every higher form of individual life becomes what it is by a process of gradual differentiation from an extremely low form; palæontology proves, in some cases, and renders probable in all, that the oldest types of a group are the lowest; and that they have been followed by a gradual succession of more and more differentiated forms. it is simply a fact, that evolution of the individual animal and plant is taking place, as a natural process, in millions and millions of cases every day; it is a fact, that the species which have succeeded one another in the past, do, in many cases, present just those morphological relations, which they must possess, if they had proceeded, one from the other, by an analogous process of evolution. the alternative presented, therefore, is: either the forms of one and the same type--say, _e.g._, that of the horse tribe[ ]--arose successively, but independently of one another, at intervals, during myriads of years; or, the later forms are modified descendants of the earlier. and the latter supposition is so vastly more probable than the former, that rational men will adopt it, unless satisfactory evidence to the contrary can be produced. the objection sometimes put forward, that no one yet professes to have seen one species pass into another, comes oddly from those who believe that mankind are all descended from adam. has any one then yet seen the production of negroes from a white stock, or _vice versâ_? moreover, is it absolutely necessary to have watched every step of the progress of a planet, to be justified in concluding that it really does go round the sun? if so, astronomy is in a bad way. i do not, for a moment, presume to suggest that some one, far better acquainted than i am with astronomy and physics; or that a master of the new chemistry, with its extraordinary revelations; or that a student of the development of human society, of language, and of religions, may not find a sufficient foundation for the doctrine of evolution in these several regions. on the contrary, i rejoice to see that scientific investigation, in all directions, is tending to the same result. and it may well be, that it is only my long occupation with biological matters that leads me to feel safer among them than anywhere else. be that as it may, i take my stand on the facts of embryology and of palæontology; and i hold that our present knowledge of these facts is sufficiently thorough and extensive to justify the assertion that all future philosophical and theological speculations will have to accommodate themselves to some such common body of established truths as the following:-- . plants and animals have existed on our planet for many hundred thousand, probably millions, of years. during this time, their forms, or species, have undergone a succession of changes, which eventually gave rise to the species which constitute the present living population of the earth. there is no evidence, nor any reason to suspect, that this secular process of evolution is other than a part of the ordinary course of nature; there is no more ground for imagining the occurrence of supernatural intervention, at any moment in the development of species in the past, than there is for supposing such intervention to take place, at any moment in the development of an individual animal or plant, at the present day. . at present, every individual animal or plant commences its existence as an organism of extremely simple anatomical structure; and it acquires all the complexity it ultimately possesses by gradual differentiation into parts of various structure and function. when a series of specific forms of the same type, extending over a long period of past time, is examined, the relation between the earlier and the later forms is analogous to that between earlier and later stages of individual development. therefore, it is a probable conclusion that, if we could follow living beings back to their earlier states, we should find them to present forms similar to those of the individual germ, or, what comes to the same thing, of those lowest known organisms which stand upon the boundary line between plants and animals. at present, our knowledge of the ancient living world stops very far short of this point. . it is generally agreed, and there is certainly no evidence to the contrary, that all plants are devoid of consciousness; that they neither feel, desire, nor think. it is conceivable that the evolution of the primordial living substance should have taken place only along the plant line. in that case, the result might have been a wealth of vegetable life, as great, perhaps as varied, as at present, though certainly widely different from the present flora, in the evolution of which animals have played so great a part. but the living world thus constituted would be simply an admirable piece of unconscious machinery, the working out of which lay potentially in its primitive composition; pleasure and pain would have no place in it; it would be a veritable garden of eden without any tree of the knowledge of good and evil. the question of the moral government of such a world could no more be asked, than we could reasonably seek for a moral purpose in a kaleidoscope. . how far down the scale of animal life the phenomena of consciousness are manifested, it is impossible to say. no one doubts their presence in his fellow-men; and, unless any strict cartesians are left, no one doubts that mammals and birds are to be reckoned creatures that have feelings analogous to our smell, taste, sight, hearing, touch, pleasure, and pain. for my own part, i should be disposed to extend this analogical judgment a good deal further. on the other hand, if the lowest forms of plants are to be denied consciousness, i do not see on what ground it is to be ascribed to the lowest animals. i find it hard to believe that an infusory animalcule, a foraminifer, or a fresh-water polype is capable of feeling; and, in spite of shakspere, i have doubts about the great sensitiveness of the "poor beetle that we tread upon." the question is equally perplexing when we turn to the stages of development of the individual. granted a fowl feels; that the chick just hatched feels; that the chick when it chirps within the egg may possibly feel; what is to be said of it on the fifth day, when the bird is there, but with all its tissues nascent? still more, on the first day, when it is nothing but a flat cellular disk? i certainly cannot bring myself to believe that this disk feels. yet if it does not, there must be some time in the three weeks, between the first day and the day of hatching, when, as a concomitant, or a consequence, of the attainment by the brain of the chick of a certain stage of structural evolution, consciousness makes its appearance. i have frequently expressed my incapacity to understand the nature of the relation between consciousness and a certain anatomical tissue, which is thus established by observation. but the fact remains that, so far as observation and experiment go, they teach us that the psychical phenomena are dependent on the physical. in like manner, if fishes, insects, scorpions, and such animals as the pearly nautilus, possess feeling, then undoubtedly consciousness was present in the world as far back as the silurian epoch. but, if the earliest animals were similar to our rhizopods and monads, there must have been some time, between the much earlier epoch in which they constituted the whole animal population and the silurian, in which feeling dawned, in consequence of the organism having reached the stage of evolution on which it depends. . consciousness has various forms, which may be manifested independently of one another. the feelings of light and colour, of sound, of touch, though so often associated with those of pleasure and pain, are, by nature, as entirely independent of them as is thinking. an animal devoid of the feelings of pleasure and of pain, may nevertheless exhibit all the effects of sensation and purposive action. therefore, it would be a justifiable hypothesis that, long after organic evolution had attained to consciousness, pleasure and pain were still absent. such a world would be without either happiness or misery; no act could be punished and none could be rewarded; and it could have no moral purpose. . suppose, for argument's sake, that all mammals and birds are subjects of pleasure and pain. then we may be certain that these forms of consciousness were in existence at the beginning of the mesozoic epoch. from that time forth, pleasure has been distributed without reference to merit, and pain inflicted without reference to demerit, throughout all but a mere fraction of the higher animals. moreover, the amount and the severity of the pain, no less than the variety and acuteness of the pleasure, have increased with every advance in the scale of evolution. as suffering came into the world, not in consequence of a fall, but of a rise, in the scale of being, so every further rise has brought more suffering. as the evidence stands it would appear that the sort of brain which characterizes the highest mammals and which, so far as we know, is the indispensable condition of the highest sensibility, did not come into existence before the tertiary epoch. the primordial anthropoid was probably, in this respect, on much the same footing as his pithecoid kin. like them he stood upon his "natural rights," gratified all his desires to the best of his ability, and was as incapable of either right or wrong doing as they. it would be as absurd as in their case, to regard his pleasures, any more than theirs, as moral rewards, and his pains, any more than theirs, as moral punishments. . from the remotest ages of which we have any cognizance, death has been the natural and, apparently, the necessary concomitant of life. in our hypothetical world ( ), inhabited by nothing but plants, death must have very early resulted from the struggle for existence: many of the crowd must have jostled one another out of the conditions on which life depends. the occurrence of death, as far back as we have any fossil record of life, however, needs not to be proved by such arguments; for, if there had been no death there would have been no fossil remains, such as the great majority of those we met with. not only was there death in the world, as far as the record of life takes us; but, ever since mammals and birds have been preyed upon by carnivorous animals, there has been painful death, inflicted by mechanisms specially adapted for inflicting it. . those who are acquainted with the closeness of the structural relations between the human organisation and that of the mammals which come nearest to him, on the one hand; and with the palæontological history of such animals as horses and dogs, on the other; will not be disposed to question the origin of man from forms which stand in the same sort of relation to _homo sapiens_, as _hipparion_ does to _equus_. i think it a conclusion, fully justified by analogy, that, sooner or later, we shall discover the remains of our less specialised primatic ancestors in the strata which have yielded the less specialised equine and canine quadrupeds. at present, fossil remains of men do not take us hack further than the later part of the quaternary epoch; and, as was to be expected, they do not differ more from existing men, than quaternary horses differ from existing horses. still earlier we find traces of man, in implements, such as are used by the ruder savages at the present day. later, the remains of the palæolithic and neolithic conditions take us gradually from the savage state to the civilizations of egypt and of mycenæ; though the true chronological order of the remains actually discovered may be uncertain. . much has yet to be learned, but, at present, natural knowledge affords no support to the notion that men have fallen from a higher to a lower state. on the contrary, everything points to a slow natural evolution; which, favoured by the surrounding conditions in such localities as the valleys of the yang-tse-kang, the euphrates, and the nile, reached a relatively high pitch, five or six thousand years ago; while, in many other regions, the savage condition has persisted down to our day. in all this vast lapse of time there is not a trace of the occurrence of any general destruction of the human race; not the smallest indication that man has been treated on any other principles than the rest of the animal world. . the results of the process of evolution in the case of man, and in that of his more nearly allied contemporaries, have been marvellously different. yet it is easy to see that small primitive differences of a certain order, must, in the long run, bring about a wide divergence of the human stock from the others. it is a reasonable supposition that, in the earliest human organisms, an improved brain, a voice more capable of modulation and articulation, limbs which lent themselves better to gesture, a more perfect hand, capable among other things of imitating form in plastic or other material, were combined with the curiosity, the mimetic tendency, the strong family affection of the next lower group; and that they were accompanied by exceptional length of life and a prolonged minority. the last two peculiarities are obviously calculated to strengthen the family organisation, and to give great weight to its educative influences. the potentiality of language, as the vocal symbol of thought, lay in the faculty of modulating and articulating the voice. the potentiality of writing, as the visual symbol of thought, lay in the hand that could draw; and in the mimetic tendency, which, as we know, was gratified by drawing, as far back as the days of quaternary man. with speech as the record, in tradition, of the experience of more than one generation; with writing as the record of that of any number of generations; the experience of the race, tested and corrected generation after generation, could be stored up and made the starting point for fresh progress. having these perfectly natural factors of the evolutionary process in man before us, it seems unnecessary to go further a-field in search of others. . that the doctrine of evolution implies a former state of innocence of mankind is quite true; but, as i have remarked, it is the innocence of the ape and of the tiger, whose acts, however they may run counter to the principles of morality, it would be absurd to blame. the lust of the one and the ferocity of the other are as much provided for in their organisation, are as clear evidences of design, as any other features that can be named. observation and experiment upon the phenomena of society soon taught men that, in order to obtain the advantages of social existence, certain rules must be observed. morality commenced with society. society is possible only upon the condition that the members of it shall surrender more or less of their individual freedom of action. in primitive societies, individual selfishness is a centrifugal force of such intensity that it is constantly bringing the social organisation to the verge of destruction. hence the prominence of the positive rules of obedience to the elders; of standing by the family or the tribe in all emergencies; of fulfilling the religious rites, non-observance of which is conceived to damage it with the supernatural powers, belief in whose existence is one of the earliest products of human thought; and of the negative rules which restrain each from meddling with the life or property of another. . the highest conceivable form of human society is that in which the desire to do what is best for the whole dominates and limits the action of every member of that society. the more complex the social organisation the greater the number of acts from which each man must abstain if he desires to do that which is best for all. thus the progressive evolution of society means increasing restriction of individual freedom in certain directions. with the advance of civilisation, and the growth of cities and of nations by the coalescence of families and of tribes, the rules which constitute the common foundation of morality and of law became more numerous and complicated, and the temptations to break or evade many of them stronger. in the absence of a clear apprehension of the natural sanctions of these rules, a supernatural sanction was assumed; and imagination supplied the motives which reason was supposed to be incompetent to furnish. religion, at first independent of morality, gradually took morality under its protection; and the supernaturalists have ever since tried to persuade mankind that the existence of ethics is bound up with that of supernaturalism. i am not of that opinion. but, whether it is correct or otherwise, it is very clear to me that, as beelzebub is not to be cast out by the aid of beelzebub, so morality is not to be established by immorality. it is, we are told, the special peculiarity of the devil that he was a liar from the beginning. if we set out in life with pretending to know that which we do not know; with professing to accept for proof evidence which we are well aware is inadequate; with wilfully shutting our eyes and our ears to facts which militate against this or that comfortable hypothesis; we are assuredly doing our best to deserve the same character. * * * * * i have not the presumption to imagine that, in spite of all my efforts, errors may not have crept into these propositions. but i am tolerably confident that time will prove them to be substantially correct. and if they are so, i confess i do not see how any extant supernaturalistic system can also claim exactness. that they are irreconcilable with the biblical cosmogony, anthropology, and theodicy is obvious; but they are no less inconsistent with the sentimental deism of the "vicaire savoyard" and his numerous modern progeny. it is as impossible, to my mind, to suppose that the evolutionary process was set going with full foreknowledge of the result and yet with what we should understand by a purely benevolent intention, as it is to imagine that the intention was purely malevolent. and the prevalence of dualistic theories from the earliest times to the present day--whether in the shape of the doctrine of the inherently evil nature of matter; of an ahriman; of a hard and cruel demiurge; of a diabolical "prince of this world," show how widely this difficulty has been felt. many seem to think that, when it is admitted that the ancient literature, contained in our bibles, has no more claim to infallibility than any other ancient literature; when it is proved that the israelites and their christian successors accepted a great many supernaturalistic theories and legends which have no better foundation than those of heathenism, nothing remains to be done but to throw the bible aside as so much waste paper. i have always opposed this opinion. it appears to me that if there is anybody more objectionable than the orthodox bibliolater it is the heterodox philistine, who can discover in a literature which, in some respects, has no superior, nothing but a subject for scoffing and an occasion for the display of his conceited ignorance of the debt he owes to former generations. twenty-two years ago i pleaded for the use of the bible as an instrument of popular education, and i venture to repeat what i then said: "consider the great historical fact that, for three centuries, this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in english history; that it has become the national epic of britain and is as familiar to gentle and simple, from john o' groat's house to land's end, as dante and tasso once were to the italians; that it is written in the noblest and purest english and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere literary form; and, finally, that it forbids the veriest hind, who never left his village, to be ignorant of the existence of other countries and other civilisations and of a great past, stretching back to the furthest limits of the oldest nations in the world. by the study of what other book could children be so much humanised and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between the eternities; and earns the blessings or the curses of all time, according to its effort to do good and hate evil, even as they also are earning their payment for their work?"[ ] at the same time, i laid stress upon the necessity of placing such instruction in lay hands; in the hope and belief, that it would thus gradually accommodate itself to the coming changes of opinion; that the theology and the legend would drop more and more out of sight, while the perennially interesting historical, literary, and ethical contents would come more and more into view. i may add yet another claim of the bible to the respect and the attention of a democratic age. throughout the history of the western world, the scriptures, jewish and christian, have been the great instigators of revolt against the worst forms of clerical and political despotism. the bible has been the _magna charta_ of the poor and of the oppressed; down to modern times, no state has had a constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than the privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for israel in deuteronomy and in leviticus; nowhere is the fundamental truth that the welfare of the state, in the long run, depends on the uprightness of the citizen so strongly laid down. assuredly, the bible talks no trash about the rights of man; but it insists on the equality of duties, on the liberty to bring about that righteousness which is somewhat different from struggling for "rights"; on the fraternity of taking thought for one's neighbour as for one's self. so far as such equality, liberty, and fraternity are included under the democratic principles which assume the same names, the bible is the most democratic book in the world. as such it began, through the heretical sects, to undermine the clerico-political despotism of the middle ages, almost as soon as it was formed, in the eleventh century; pope and king had as much as they could do to put down the albigenses and the waldenses in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; the lollards and the hussites gave them still more trouble in the fourteenth and fifteenth; from the sixteenth century onward, the protestant sects have favoured political freedom in proportion to the degree in which they have refused to acknowledge any ultimate authority save that of the bible. but the enormous influence which has thus been exerted by the jewish and christian scriptures has had no necessary connection with cosmogonies, demonologies, and miraculous interferences. their strength lies in their appeals, not to the reason, but to the ethical sense. i do not say that even the highest biblical ideal is exclusive of others or needs no supplement. but i do believe that the human race is not yet, possibly may never be, in a position to dispense with it. footnotes: [ ] with a few exceptions, which are duly noted when they amount to more than verbal corrections. [ ] _declaration on the truth of holy scripture._ the _times_, th december, . [ ] _declaration_, article . [ ] ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesiæ catholicæ me commoveret auctoritas.--_contra epistolam manichæi_, cap. v. [ ] i employ the words "supernature" and "supernatural" in their popular senses. for myself, i am bound to say that the term "nature" covers the totality of that which is. the world of psychical phenomena appears to me to be as much part of "nature" as the world of physical phenomena; and i am unable to perceive any justification for cutting the universe into two halves, one natural and one supernatural. [ ] the general reader will find an admirably clear and concise statement of the evidence in this case, in professor flower's recently published work _the horse: a study in natural history_. [ ] "the school boards: what they can do and what they may do," . _critiques and addresses_, p. . ii: scientific and pseudo-scientific realism [ ] next to undue precipitation in anticipating the results of pending investigations, the intellectual sin which is commonest and most hurtful to those who devote themselves to the increase of knowledge is the omission to profit by the experience of their predecessors recorded in the history of science and philosophy. it is true that, at the present day, there is more excuse than at any former time for such neglect. no small labour is needed to raise one's self to the level of the acquisitions already made; and able men, who have achieved thus much, know that, if they devote themselves body and soul to the increase of their store, and avoid looking back, with as much care as if the injunction laid on lot and his family were binding upon them, such devotion is sure to be richly repaid by the joys of the discoverer and the solace of fame, if not by rewards of a less elevated character. so, following the advice of francis bacon, we refuse _inter mortuos quærere vivum_; we leave the past to bury its dead, and ignore our intellectual ancestry. nor are we content with that. we follow the evil example set us, not only by bacon but by almost all the men of the renaissance, in pouring scorn upon the work of our immediate spiritual forefathers, the schoolmen of the middle ages. it is accepted as a truth which is indisputable, that, for seven or eight centuries, a long succession of able men--some of them of transcendent acuteness and encyclopædic knowledge--devoted laborious lives to the grave discussion of mere frivolities and the arduous pursuit of intellectual will-o'-the-wisps. to say nothing of a little modesty, a little impartial pondering over personal experience might suggest a doubt as to the adequacy of this short and easy method of dealing with a large chapter of the history of the human mind. even an acquaintance with popular literature which had extended so far as to include that part of the contributions of sam slick which contains his weighty aphorism that "there is a great deal of human nature in all mankind," might raise a doubt whether, after all, the men of that epoch, who, take them all round, were endowed with wisdom and folly in much the same proportion as ourselves, were likely to display nothing better than the qualities of energetic idiots, when they devoted their faculties to the elucidation of problems which were to them, and indeed are to us, the most serious which life has to offer. speaking for myself, the longer i live the more i am disposed to think that there is much less either of pure folly, or of pure wickedness, in the world than is commonly supposed. it may be doubted if any sane man ever said to himself, "evil, be thou my good," and i have never yet had the good fortune to meet with a perfect fool. when i have brought to the inquiry the patience and long-suffering which become a scientific investigator, the most promising specimens have turned out to have a good deal to say for themselves from their own point of view. and, sometimes, calm reflection has taught the humiliating lesson, that their point of view was not so different from my own as i had fondly imagined. comprehension is more than half-way to sympathy, here as elsewhere. if we turn our attention to scholastic philosophy in the frame of mind suggested by these prefatory remarks, it assumes a very different character from that which it bears in general estimation. no doubt it is surrounded by a dense thicket of thorny logomachies and obscured by the dust-clouds of a barbarous and perplexing terminology. but suppose that, undeterred by much grime and by many scratches, the explorer has toiled through this jungle, he comes to an open country which is amazingly like his dear native land. the hills which he has to climb, the ravines he has to avoid, look very much the same; there is the same infinite space above, and the same abyss of the unknown below; the means of travelling are the same, and the goal is the same. that goal for the schoolmen, as for us, is the settlement of the question how far the universe is the manifestation of a rational order; in other words, how far logical deduction from indisputable premisses will account for what which has happened and does happen. that was the object of scholasticism, and, so far as i am aware, the object of modern science may be expressed in the same terms. in pursuit of this end, modern science takes into account all the phenomena of the universe which are brought to our knowledge by observation or by experiment. it admits that there are two worlds to be considered, the one physical and the other psychical; and that though there is a most intimate relation and interconnection between the two, the bridge from one to the other has yet to be found; that their phenomena run, not in one series, but along two parallel lines. to the schoolmen the duality of the universe appeared under a different aspect. how this came about will not be intelligible unless we clearly apprehend the fact that they did really believe in dogmatic christianity as it was formulated by the roman church. they did not give a mere dull assent to anything the church told them on sundays, and ignore her teachings for the rest of the week; but they lived and moved and had their being in that supersensible theological world which was created, or rather grew up, during the first four centuries of our reckoning, and which occupied their thoughts far more than the sensible world in which their earthly lot was cast. for the most part, we learn history from the colourless compendiums or partisan briefs of mere scholars, who have too little acquaintance with practical life, and too little insight into speculative problems, to understand that about which they write. in historical science, as in all sciences which have to do with concrete phenomena, laboratory practice is indispensable; and the laboratory practice of historical science is afforded, on the one hand, by active social and political life, and, on the other, by the study of those tendencies and operations of the mind which embody themselves in philosophical and theological systems. thucydides and tacitus, and, to come nearer our own time, hume and grote, were men of affairs, and had acquired, by direct contact with social and political history in the making, the secret of understanding how such history is made. our notions of the intellectual history of the middle ages are, unfortunately, too often derived from writers who have never seriously grappled with philosophical and theological problems: and hence that strange myth of a millennium of moonshine to which i have adverted. however, no very profound study of the works of contemporary writers who, without devoting themselves specially to theology or philosophy, were learned and enlightened--such men, for example, as eginhard or dante--is necessary to convince one's self, that, for them, the world of the theologian was an ever-present and awful reality. from the centre of that world, the divine trinity, surrounded by a hierarchy of angels and saints, contemplated and governed the insignificant sensible world in which the inferior spirits of men, burdened with the debasement of their material embodiment and continually solicited to their perdition by a no less numerous and almost as powerful hierarchy of devils, were constantly struggling on the edge of the pit of everlasting damnation.[ ] the men of the middle ages believed that through the scriptures, the traditions of the fathers, and the authority of the church, they were in possession of far more, and more trustworthy, information with respect to the nature and order of things in the theological world than they had in regard to the nature and order of things in the sensible world. and, if the two sources of information came into conflict, so much the worse for the sensible world, which, after all, was more or less under the dominion of satan. let us suppose that a telescope powerful enough to show us what is going on in the nebula of the sword of orion, should reveal a world in which stones fell upwards, parallel lines met, and the fourth dimension of space was quite obvious. men of science would have only two alternatives before them. either the terrestrial and the nebular facts must be brought into harmony by such feats of subtle sophistry as the human mind is always capable of performing when driven into a corner; or science must throw down its arms in despair, and commit suicide, either by the admission that the universe is, after all, irrational, inasmuch as that which is truth in one corner of it is absurdity in another, or by a declaration of incompetency. in the middle ages, the labours of those great men who endeavoured to reconcile the system of thought which started from the data of pure reason, with that which started from the data of roman theology, produced the system of thought which is known as scholastic philosophy; the alternative of surrender and suicide is exemplified by avicenna and his followers when they declared that that which is true in theology may be false in philosophy, and _vice versâ_; and by sanchez in his famous defence of the thesis "_quod nil scitur_." to those who deny the validity of one of the primary assumptions of the disputants--who decline, on the ground of the utter insufficiency of the evidence, to put faith in the reality of that other world, the geography and the inhabitants of which are so confidently described in the so-called[ ] christianity of catholicism--the long and bitter contest, which engaged the best intellects for so many centuries, may seem a terrible illustration of the wasteful way in which the struggle for existence is carried on in the world of thought, no less than in that of matter. but there is a more cheerful mode of looking at the history of scholasticism. it ground and sharpened the dialectic implements of our race as perhaps nothing but discussions, in the result of which men thought their eternal, no less than their temporal, interests were at stake, could have done. when a logical blunder may ensure combustion, not only in the next world but in this, the construction of syllogisms acquires a peculiar interest. moreover, the schools kept the thinking faculty alive and active, when the disturbed state of civil life, the mephitic atmosphere engendered by the dominant ecclesiasticism, and the almost total neglect of natural knowledge, might well have stifled it. and, finally, it should be remembered that scholasticism really did thresh out pretty effectually certain problems which have presented themselves to mankind ever since they began to think, and which, i suppose, will present themselves so long as they continue to think. consider, for example, the controversy of the realists and the nominalists, which was carried on with varying fortunes, and under various names, from the time of scotus erigena to the end of the scholastic period. has it now a merely antiquarian interest? has nominalism, in any of its modifications, so completely won the day that realism may be regarded as dead and buried without hope of resurrection? many people seem to think so, but it appears to me that, without taking catholic philosophy into consideration, one has not to look about far to find evidence that realism is still to the fore, and indeed extremely lively.[ ] * * * * * the other day i happened to meet with a report of a sermon recently preached in st. paul's cathedral. from internal evidence i am inclined to think that the report is substantially correct. but as i have not the slightest intention of finding fault with the eminent theologian and eloquent preacher to whom the discourse is attributed, for employment of scientific language in a manner for which he could find only too many scientific precedents, the accuracy of the report in detail is not to the purpose. i may safely take it as the embodiment of views which are thought to be quite in accordance with science by many excellent, instructed, and intelligent people. the preacher further contended that it was yet more difficult to realise that our earthly home would become the scene of a vast physical catastrophe. imagination recoils from the idea that the course of nature--the phrase helps to disguise the truth--so unvarying and regular, the ordered sequence of movement and life, should suddenly cease. imagination looks more reasonable when it assumes the air of scientific reason. physical law, it says, will prevent the occurrence of catastrophes only anticipated by an apostle in an unscientific age. might not there, however, be a suspension of a lower law by the intervention of a higher? thus every time we lifted our arms we defied the laws of gravitation, and in railways and steamboats powerful laws were held in check by others. the flood and the destruction of sodom and gomorrah were brought about by the operation of existing laws, and may it not be that in his illimitable universe there are more important laws than those which surround our puny life--moral and not merely physical forces? is it inconceivable that the day will come when these royal and ultimate laws shall wreck the natural order of things which seems so stable and so fair? earthquakes were not things of remote antiquity, as an island off italy, the eastern archipelago, greece, and chicago bore witness.... in presence of a great earthquake men feel how powerless they are, and their very knowledge adds to their weakness. the end of human probation, the final dissolution of organised society, and the destruction of man's home on the surface of the globe, were none of them violently contrary to our present experience, but only the extension of present facts. the presentiment of death was common; there were felt to be many things which threatened the existence of society; and as our globe was a ball of fire, at any moment the pent-up forces which surge and boil beneath our feet might be poured out ("pall mall gazette," december , ). the preacher appears to entertain the notion that the occurrence of a "catastrophe"[ ] involves a breach of the present order of nature--that it is an event incompatible with the physical laws which at present obtain. he seems to be of opinion that "scientific reason" lends its authority to the imaginative supposition that physical law will prevent the occurrence of the "catastrophes" anticipated by an unscientific apostle. scientific reason, like homer, sometimes nods; but i am not aware that it has ever dreamed dreams of this sort. the fundamental axiom of scientific thought is that there is not, never has been, and never will be, any disorder in nature. the admission of the occurrence of any event which was not the logical consequence of the immediately antecedent events, according to these definite, ascertained, or unascertained rules which we call the "laws of nature," would be an act of self-destruction on the part of science. "catastrophe" is a relative conception. for ourselves it means an event which brings about very terrible consequences to man, or impresses his mind by its magnitude relatively to him. but events which are quite in the natural order of things to us, may be frightful catastrophes to other sentient beings. surely no interruption of the order of nature is involved if, in the course of descending through an alpine pine-wood, i jump upon an anthill and in a moment wreck a whole city and destroy a hundred thousand of its inhabitants. to the ants the catastrophe is worse than the earthquake of lisbon. to me it is the natural and necessary consequence of the laws of matter in motion. a redistribution of energy has taken place, which is perfectly in accordance with natural order, however unpleasant its effects may be to the ants. imagination, inspired by scientific reason, and not merely assuming the airs thereof, as it unfortunately too often does in the pulpit, so far from having any right to repudiate catastrophes and deny the possibility of the cessation of motion and life, easily finds justification for the exactly contrary course. kant in his famous "theory of the heavens" declares the end of the world and its reduction to a formless condition to be a necessary consequence of the causes to which it owes its origin and continuance. and, as to catastrophes of prodigious magnitude and frequent occurrence, they were the favourite _asylum ignorantiæ_ of geologists, not a quarter of a century ago. if modern geology is becoming more and more disinclined to call in catastrophes to its aid, it is not because of any _a priori_ difficulty in reconciling the occurrence of such events with the universality of order, but because the _a posteriori_ evidence of the occurrence of events of this character in past times has more or less completely broken down. it is, to say the least, highly probable that this earth is a mass of extremely hot matter, invested by a cooled crust, through which the hot interior still continues to cool, though with extreme slowness. it is no less probable that the faults and dislocations, the foldings and fractures, everywhere visible in the stratified crust, its large and slow movements through miles of elevation and depression, and its small and rapid movements which give rise to the innumerable perceived and unperceived earthquakes which are constantly occurring, are due to the shrinkage of the crust on its cooling and contracting nucleus. without going beyond the range of fair scientific analogy, conditions are easily conceivable which should render the loss of heat far more rapid than it is at present; and such an occurrence would be just as much in accordance with ascertained laws of nature, as the more rapid cooling of a red-hot bar, when it is thrust into cold water, than when it remains in the air. but much more rapid cooling might entail a shifting and rearrangement of the parts of the crust of the earth on a scale of unprecedented magnitude, and bring about "catastrophes" to which the earthquake of lisbon is but a trifle. it is conceivable that man and his works and all the higher forms of animal life should be utterly destroyed; that mountain regions should he converted into ocean depths and the floor of oceans raised into mountains; and the earth become a scene of horror which even the lurid fancy of the writer of the apocalypse would fail to portray. and yet, to the eye of science, there would he no more disorder here than in the sabbatical peace of a summer sea. not a link in the chain of natural causes and effects would he broken, nowhere would there be the slightest indication of the "suspension of a lower law by a higher." if a sober scientific thinker is inclined to put little faith in the wild vaticinations of universal ruin which, in a less saintly person than the seer of patmos, might seem to be dictated by the fury of a revengeful fanatic, rather than by the spirit of the teacher who bid men love their enemies, it is not on the ground that they contradict scientific principles; but because the evidence of their scientific value does not fulfil the conditions on which weight is attached to evidence. the imagination which supposes that it does, simply does not "assume the air of scientific reason." i repeat that, if imagination is used within the limits laid down by science, disorder is unimaginable. if a being endowed with perfect intellectual and æsthetic faculties, but devoid of the capacity for suffering pain, either physical or moral, were to devote his utmost powers to the investigation of nature, the universe would seem to him to be a sort of kaleidoscope, in which, at every successive moment of time, a new arrangement of parts of exquisite beauty and symmetry would present itself; and each of them would show itself to be the logical consequence of the preceding arrangement, under the conditions which we call the laws of nature. such a spectator might well be filled with that _amor intellectualis dei_, the beatific vision of the _vita contemplativa_, which some of the greatest thinkers of all ages, aristotle, aquinas, spinoza, have regarded as the only conceivable eternal felicity; and the vision of illimitable suffering, as if sensitive beings were unregarded animalcules which had got between the bits of glass of the kaleidoscope, which mars the prospect to us poor mortals, in no wise alters the fact that order is lord of all, and disorder only a name for that part of the order which gives us pain. the other fallacious employment of the names of scientific conceptions which pervades the preacher's utterance, brings me back to the proper topic of the present essay. it is the use of the word "law" as if it denoted a thing--as if a "law of nature," as science understands it, were a being endowed with certain powers, in virtue of which the phenomena expressed by that law are brought about. the preacher asks, "might not there be a suspension of a lower law by the intervention of a higher?" he tells us that every time we lift our arms we defy the law of gravitation. he asks whether some day certain "royal and ultimate laws" may not come and "wreck" those laws which are at present, it would appear, acting as nature's police. it is evident, from these expressions, that "laws," in the mind of the preacher, are entities having an objective existence in a graduated hierarchy. and it would appear that the "royal laws" are by no means to be regarded as constitutional royalties: at any moment, they may, like eastern despots, descend in wrath among the middle-class and plebeian laws, which have hitherto done the drudgery of the world's work, and, to use phraseology not unknown in our seats of learning--"make hay" of their belongings. or perhaps a still more familiar analogy has suggested this singular theory; and it is thought that high laws may "suspend" low laws, as a bishop may suspend a curate. far be it from me to controvert these views, if any one likes to hold them. all i wish to remark is that such a conception of the nature of "laws" has nothing to do with modern science. it is scholastic realism--realism as intense and unmitigated as that of scotus erigena a thousand years ago. the essence of such realism is that it maintains the objective existence of universals, or, as we call them nowadays, general propositions. it affirms, for example, that "man" is a real thing, apart from individual men, having its existence, not in the sensible, but in the intelligible world, and clothing itself with the accidents of sense to make the jack and tom and harry whom we know. strange as such a notion may appear to modern scientific thought, it really pervades ordinary language. there are few people who would, at once, hesitate to admit that colour, for example, exists apart from the mind which conceives the idea of colour. they hold it to be something which resides in the coloured object; and so far they are as much realists as if they had sat at plato's feet. reflection on the facts of the case must, i imagine, convince every one that "colour" is--not a mere name, which was the extreme nominalist position--but a name for that group of states of feeling which we call blue, red, yellow, and so on, and which we believe to be caused by luminiferous vibrations which have not the slightest resemblance to colour; while these again are set afoot by states of the body to which we ascribe colour, but which are equally devoid of likeness to colour. in the same way, a law of nature, in the scientific sense, is the product of a mental operation upon the facts of nature which come under our observation, and has no more existence outside the mind than colour has. the law of gravitation is a statement of the manner in which experience shows that bodies, which are free to move, do, in fact, move towards one another. but the other facts of observation, that bodies are not always moving in this fashion, and sometimes move in a contrary direction, are implied in the words "free to move." if it is a law of nature that bodies tend to move towards one another in a certain way; it is another and no less true law of nature that, if bodies are not free to move as they tend to do, either in consequence of an obstacle, or of a contrary impulse from some other source of energy than that to which we give the name of gravitation, they either stop still, or go another way. scientifically speaking, it is the acme of absurdity to talk of a man defying the law of gravitation when he lifts his arm. the general store of energy in the universe working through terrestrial matter is doubtless tending to bring the man's arm down; but the particular fraction of that energy which is working through certain of his nervous and muscular organs is tending to drive it up, and more energy being expended on the arm in the upward than in the downward direction, the arm goes up accordingly. but the law of gravitation is no more defied, in this case, than when a grocer throws so much sugar into the empty pan of his scales that the one which contains the weight kicks the beam. the tenacity of the wonderful fallacy that the laws of nature are agents, instead of being, as they really are, a mere record of experience, upon which we base our interpretations of that which does happen, and our anticipation of that which will happen, is an interesting psychological fact; and would be unintelligible if the tendency of the human mind towards realism were less strong. even at the present day, and in the writings of men who would at once repudiate scholastic realism in any form, "law" is often inadvertently employed in the sense of cause, just as, in common life, a man will say that he is compelled by the law to do so and so, when, in point of fact, all he means is that the law orders him to do it, and tells him what will happen if he does not do it. we commonly hear of bodies falling to the ground by reason of the law of gravitation, whereas that law is simply the record of the fact that, according to all experience, they have so fallen (when free to move), and of the grounds of a reasonable expectation that they will so fall. if it should be worth anybody's while to seek for examples of such misuse of language on my own part, i am not at all sure he might not succeed, though i have usually been on my guard against such looseness of expression. if i am guilty, i do penance beforehand, and only hope that i may thereby deter others from committing the like fault. and i venture on this personal observation by way of showing that i have no wish to bear hardly on the preacher for falling into an error for which he might find good precedents. but it is one of those errors which, in the case of a person engaged in scientific pursuits, do little harm, because it is corrected as soon as its consequences become obvious; while those who know physical science only by name are, as has been seen, easily led to build a mighty fabric of unrealities on this fundamental fallacy. in fact, the habitual use of the word "law," in the sense of an active thing, is almost a mark of pseudo-science; it characterises the writings of those who have appropriated the forms of science without knowing anything of its substance. there are two classes of these people: those who are ready to believe in any miracle so long as it is guaranteed by ecclesiastical authority; and those who are ready to believe in any miracle so long as it has some different guarantee. the believers in what are ordinarily called miracles--those who accept the miraculous narratives which they are taught to think are essential elements of religious doctrine--are in the one category; the spirit-rappers, table-turners, and all the other devotees of the occult sciences of our day are in the other: and, if they disagree in most things they agree in this, namely, that they ascribe to science a dictum that is not scientific; and that they endeavour to upset the dictum thus foisted on science by a realistic argument which is equally unscientific. it is asserted, for example, that, on a particular occasion, water was turned into wine; and, on the other hand, it is asserted that a man or a woman "levitated" to the ceiling, floated about there, and finally sailed out by the window. and it is assumed that the pardonable scepticism, with which most scientific men receive these statements, is due to the fact that they feel themselves justified in denying the possibility of any such metamorphosis of water, or of any such levitation, because such events are contrary to the laws of nature. so the question of the preacher is triumphantly put: how do you know that there are not "higher" laws of nature than your chemical and physical laws, and that these higher laws may not intervene and "wreck" the latter? the plain answer to this question is, why should anybody be called upon to say how he knows that which he does not know? you are assuming that laws are agents--efficient causes of that which happens--and that one law can interfere with another. to us, that assumption is as nonsensical as if you were to talk of a proposition of euclid being the cause of the diagram which illustrates it, or of the integral calculus interfering with the rule of three. your question really implies that we pretend to complete knowledge not only of all past and present phenomena, but of all that are possible in the future, and we leave all that sort of thing to the adepts of esoteric buddhism. our pretensions are infinitely more modest. we have succeeded in finding out the rules of action of a little bit of the universe; we call these rules "laws of nature," not because anybody knows whether they bind nature or not, but because we find it is obligatory on us to take them into account, both as actors under nature, and as interpreters of nature. we have any quantity of genuine miracles of our own, and if you will furnish us with as good evidence of your miracles as we have of ours, we shall be quite happy to accept them and to amend our expression of the laws of nature in accordance with the new facts. as to the particular cases adduced, we are so perfectly fair-minded as to be willing to help your case as far as we can. you are quite mistaken in supposing that anybody who is acquainted with the possibilities of physical science will undertake categorically to deny that water may be turned into wine. many very competent judges are already inclined to think that the bodies, which we have hitherto called elementary, are really composite arrangements of the particles of a uniform primitive matter. supposing that view to be correct, there would be no more theoretical difficulty about turning water into alcohol, ethereal and colouring matters, than there is, at this present moment, any practical difficulty in working other such miracles; as when we turn sugar into alcohol, carbonic acid, glycerine, and succinic acid; or transmute gas-refuse into perfumes rarer than musk and dyes richer than tyrian purple. if the so-called "elements," oxygen and hydrogen, which compose water, are aggregates of the same ultimate particles, or physical units, as those which enter into the structure of the so-called element "carbon," it is obvious that alcohol and other substances, composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, may be produced by a rearrangement of some of the units of oxygen and hydrogen into the "element" carbon, and their synthesis with the rest of the oxygen and hydrogen. theoretically, therefore, we can have no sort of objection to your miracle. and our reply to the levitators is just the same. why should not your friend "levitate"? fish are said to rise and sink in the water by altering the volume of an internal air-receptacle; and there may be many ways science, as yet, knows nothing of, by which we, who live at the bottom of an ocean of air, may do the same thing. dialectic gas and wind appear to be by no means wanting among you, and why should not long practice in pneumatic philosophy have resulted in the internal generation of something a thousand times rarer than hydrogen, by which, in accordance with the most ordinary natural laws, you would not only rise to the ceiling and float there in quasi-angelic posture, but perhaps, as one of your feminine adepts is said to have done, flit swifter than train or telegram to "still-vexed bermoothes," and twit ariel, if he happens to be there, for a sluggard? we have not the presumption to deny the possibility of anything you affirm; only, as our brethren are particular about evidence, do give us as much to go upon as may save us from being roared down by their inextinguishable laughter. enough of the realism which clings about "laws." there are plenty of other exemplifications of its vitality in modern science, but i will cite only one of them. this is the conception of "vital force" which comes straight from the philosophy of aristotle. it is a fundamental proposition of that philosophy that a natural object is composed of two constituents--the one its matter, conceived as inert or even, to a certain extent, opposed to orderly and purposive motion; the other its form, conceived as a quasi-spiritual something, containing or conditioning the actual activities of the body and the potentiality of its possible activities. i am disposed to think that the prominence of this conception in aristotle's theory of things arose from the circumstance that he was to begin with and throughout his life, devoted to biological studies. in fact it is a notion which must force itself upon the mind of any one who studies biological phenomena, without reference to general physics, as they now stand. everybody who observes the obvious phenomena of the development of a seed into a tree, or of an egg into an animal, will note that a relatively formless mass of matter gradually grows, takes a definite shape and structure, and, finally, begins to perform actions which contribute towards a certain end, namely, the maintenance of the individual in the first place, and of the species in the second. starting from the axiom that every event has a cause, we have here the _causa finalis_ manifested in the last set of phenomena, the _causa materialis_ and _formalis_ in the first, while the existence of a _causa efficiens_ within the seed or egg and its product, is a corollary from the phenomena of growth and metamorphosis, which proceed in unbroken succession and make up the life of the animal or plant. thus, at starting, the egg or seed is matter having a "form" like all other material bodies. but this form has the peculiarity, in contradistinction to lower substantial "forms," that it is a power which constantly works towards an end by means of living organisation. so far as i know, leibnitz is the only philosopher (at the same time a man of science, in the modern sense, of the first rank) who has noted that the modern conception of force, as a sort of atmosphere enveloping the particles of bodies, and having potential or actual activity, is simply a new name for the aristotelian form.[ ] in modern biology, up till within quite recent times, the aristotelian conception held undisputed sway; living matter was endowed with "vital force," and that accounted for everything. whosoever was not satisfied with that explanation was treated to that very "plain argument"--"confound you eternally"--wherewith lord peter overcomes the doubts of his brothers in the "tale of a tub." "materialist" was the mildest term applied to him--fortunate if he escaped pelting with "infidel" and "atheist." there may be scientific rip van winkles about, who still hold by vital force; but among those biologists who have not been asleep for the last quarter of a century "vital force" no longer figures in the vocabulary of science. it is a patent survival of realism; the generalisation from experience that all living bodies exhibit certain activities of a definite character is made the basis of the notion that every living body contains an entity, "vital force," which is assumed to be the cause of those activities. it is remarkable, in looking back, to notice to what an extent this and other survivals of scholastic realism arrested or, at any rate, impeded the application of sound scientific principles to the investigation of biological phenomena. when i was beginning to think about these matters, the scientific world was occasionally agitated by discussions respecting the nature of the "species" and "genera" of naturalists, of a different order from the disputes of a later time. i think most were agreed that a "species" was something which existed objectively, somehow or other, and had been created by a divine fiat. as to the objective reality of genera, there was a good deal of difference of opinion. on the other hand, there were a few who could see no objective reality in anything but individuals, and looked upon both species and genera as hypostatised universals. as for myself, i seem to have unconsciously emulated william of occam, inasmuch as almost the first public discourse i ever ventured upon, dealt with "animal individuality," and its tendency was to fight the nominalist battle even in that quarter. realism appeared in still stranger forms at the time to which i refer. the community of plan which is observable in each great group of animals was hypostatised into a platonic idea with the appropriate name of "archetype," and we were told, as a disciple of philo-judæus might have told us, that this realistic figment was "the archetypal light" by which nature has been guided amidst the "wreck of worlds." so, again, another naturalist, who had no less earned a well-deserved reputation by his contributions to positive knowledge, put forward a theory of the production of living things which, as nearly as the increase of knowledge allowed, was a reproduction of the doctrine inculcated by the jewish cabbala. annexing the archetype notion, and carrying it to its full logical consequence, the author of this theory conceived that the species of animals and plants were so many incarnations of the thoughts of god--material representations of divine ideas--during the particular period of the world's history at which they existed. but, under the influence of the embryological and palæontological discoveries of modern times, which had already lent some scientific support to the revived ancient theories of cosmical evolution or emanation, the ingenious author of this speculation, while denying and repudiating the ordinary theory of evolution by successive modification of individuals, maintained and endeavoured to prove the occurrence of a progressive modification in the divine ideas of successive epochs. on the foundation of a supposed elevation of organisation in the whole living population of any epoch, as compared with that of its predecessor, and a supposed complete difference in species between the populations of any two epochs (neither of which suppositions has stood the test of further inquiry), the author of this speculation based his conclusion that the creator had, so to speak, improved upon his thoughts as time went on; and that, as each such amended scheme of creation came up, the embodiment of the earlier divine thoughts was swept away by a universal catastrophe, and an incarnation of the improved ideas took its place. only after the last such "wreck" thus brought about, did the embodiment of a divine thought, in the shape of the first man, make its appearance as the _ne plus ultra_ of the cosmogonical process. i imagine that louis agassiz, the genial backwoodsman of the science of my young days, who did more to open out new tracks in the scientific forest than most men, would have been much surprised to learn that he was preaching the doctrine of the cabbala, pure and simple. according to this modification of neoplatonism by contact with hebrew speculation, the divine essence is unknowable--without form or attribute; but the interval between it and the world of sense is filled by intelligible entities, which are nothing but the familiar hypostatised abstractions of the realists. these have emanated, like immense waves of light, from the divine centre, and, as ten consecutive zones of sephiroth, form the universe. the farther away from the centre, the more the primitive light wanes, until the periphery ends in those mere negations, darkness and evil, which are the essence of matter. on this, the divine agency transmitted through the sephiroth operates after the fashion of the aristotelian forms, and, at first, produces the lowest of a series of worlds. after a certain duration the primitive world is demolished and its fragments used up in making a better; and this process is repeated, until at length a final world, with man for its crown and finish, makes its appearance. it is needless to trace the process of retrogressive metamorphosis by which, through the agency of the messiah, the steps of the process of evolution here sketched are retraced. sufficient has been said to prove that the extremist realism current in the philosophy of the thirteenth century can be fully matched by the speculations of our own time. footnotes: [ ] there is no exaggeration in this brief and summary view of the catholic cosmos. but it would be unfair to leave it to be supposed that the reformation made any essential alteration, except perhaps for the worse, in that cosmology which called itself "christian." the protagonist of the reformation, from whom the whole of the evangelical sects are lineally descended, states the case with that plainness of speech, not to say brutality, which characterised him. luther says that man is a beast of burden who only moves as his rider orders; sometimes god rides him, and sometimes satan. "sic voluntas humana in medio posita est, ceu jumentum; si insederit deus, vult et vadit, quo vult deus.... si insederit satan, vult et vadit, quo vult satan; nec est in ejus arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere, aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum" (_de servo arbitrio_, m. lutheri opera, ed. , t. ii. p. ). one may hear substantially the same doctrine preached in the parks and at street-corners by zealous volunteer missionaries of evangelicism, any sunday, in modern london. why these doctrines, which are conspicuous by their absence in the four gospels, should arrogate to themselves the title of evangelical, in contradistinction to catholic, christianity, may well perplex the impartial inquirer, who, if he were obliged to choose between the two, might naturally prefer that which leaves the poor beast of burden a little freedom of choice. [ ] i say "so-called" not by way of offence, but as a protest against the monstrous assumption that catholic christianity is explicitly or implicitly contained in any trustworthy record of the teaching of jesus of nazareth. [ ] it may be desirable to observe that, in modern times, the term "realism" has acquired a signification wholly different from that which attached to it in the middle ages. we commonly use it as the contrary of idealism. the idealist holds that the phenomenal world has only a subjective existence, the realist that it has an objective existence. i am not aware that any mediæval philosopher was an idealist in the sense in which we apply the term to berkeley. in fact, the cardinal defect of their speculations lies in their oversight of the considerations which lead to idealism. if many of them regarded the material world as a negation, it was an active negation; not zero, but a minus quantity. [ ] at any rate a catastrophe greater than the flood, which, as i observe with interest, is as calmly assumed by the preacher to be an historical event as if science had never had a word to say on that subject! [ ] "les formes des anciens ou entéléchies ne sont autre chose que les forces" (leibnitz, _lettre au père bouvet_, ). iii: science and pseudo-science [ ] in the opening sentences of a contribution to the last number of this review,[ ] the duke of argyll has favoured me with a lecture on the proprieties of controversy, to which i should be disposed to listen with more docility if his grace's precepts appeared to me to be based upon rational principles, or if his example were more exemplary. with respect to the latter point, the duke has thought fit to entitle his article "professor huxley on canon liddon," and thus forces into prominence an element of personality, which those who read the paper which is the object of the duke's animadversions will observe i have endeavoured, most carefully, to avoid. my criticisms dealt with a report of a sermon, published in a newspaper, and thereby addressed to all the world. whether that sermon was preached by a or b was not a matter of the smallest consequence; and i went out of my way to absolve the learned divine to whom the discourse was attributed from the responsibility for statements which, for anything i knew to the contrary, might contain imperfect, or inaccurate, representations of his views. the assertion that i had the wish, or was beset, by any "temptation to attack" canon liddon is simply contrary to fact. but suppose that if, instead of sedulously avoiding even the appearance of such attack, i had thought fit to take a different course; suppose that, after satisfying myself that the eminent clergyman whose name is paraded by the duke of argyll had really uttered the words attributed to him from the pulpit of st. paul's, what right would any one have to find fault with my action on grounds either of justice, expediency, or good taste? establishment has its duties as well as its rights. the clergy of a state church enjoy many advantages over those of unprivileged and unendowed religious persuasions; but they lie under a correlative responsibility to the state, and to every member of the body politic. i am not aware that any sacredness attaches to sermons. if preachers stray beyond the doctrinal limits set by lay lawyers, the privy council will see to it; and, if they think fit to use their pulpits for the promulgation of literary, or historical, or scientific errors, it is not only the right, but the duty, of the humblest layman, who may happen to be better informed, to correct the evil effects of such perversion of the opportunities which the state affords them; and such misuse of the authority which its support lends them. whatever else it may claim to be, in its relations with the state, the established church is a branch of the civil service; and, for those who repudiate the ecclesiastical authority of the clergy, they are merely civil servants, as much responsible to the english people for the proper performance of their duties as any others. the duke of argyll tells us that the "work and calling" of the clergy prevent them from "pursuing disputation as others can." i wonder if his grace ever reads the so-called "religious" newspapers. it is not an occupation which i should commend to any one who wishes to employ his time profitably; but a very short devotion to this exercise will suffice to convince him that the "pursuit of disputation," carried to a degree of acrimony and vehemence unsurpassed in lay controversies, seems to be found quite compatible with the "work and calling" of a remarkably large number of the clergy. finally, it appears to me that nothing can be in worse taste than the assumption that a body of english gentlemen can, by any possibility, desire that immunity from criticism which the duke of argyll claims for them. nothing would be more personally offensive to me than the supposition that i shirked criticism, just or unjust, of any lecture i ever gave. i should be utterly ashamed of myself if, when i stood up as an instructor of others, i had not taken every pains to assure myself of the truth of that which i was about to say; and i should feel myself bound to be even more careful with a popular assembly, who would take me more or less on trust, than with an audience of competent and critical experts. i decline to assume that the standard of morality, in these matters, is lower among the clergy than it is among scientific men. i refuse to think that the priest who stands up before a congregation, as the minister and interpreter of the divinity, is less careful in his utterances, less ready to meet adverse comment, than the layman who comes before his audience, as the minister and interpreter of nature. yet what should we think of the man of science who, when his ignorance or his carelessness was exposed, whined about the want of delicacy of his critics, or pleaded his "work and calling" as a reason for being let alone? no man, nor any body of men, is good enough, or wise enough, to dispense with the tonic of criticism. nothing has done more harm to the clergy than the practice, too common among laymen, of regarding them, when in the pulpit, as a sort of chartered libertines, whose divagations are not to be taken seriously. and i am well assured that the distinguished divine, to whom the sermon is attributed, is the last person who would desire to avail himself of the dishonouring protection which has been superfluously thrown over him. so much for the lecture on propriety. but the duke of argyll, to whom the hortatory style seems to come naturally, does me the honour to make my sayings the subjects of a series of other admonitions, some on philosophical, some on geological, some on biological topics. i can but rejoice that the duke's authority in these matters is not always employed to show that i am ignorant of them; on the contrary, i meet with an amount of agreement, even of approbation, for which i proffer such gratitude as may be due, even if that gratitude is sometimes almost overshadowed by surprise. i am unfeignedly astonished to find that the duke of argyll, who professes to intervene on behalf of the preacher, does really, like another balaam, bless me altogether in respect of the main issue. i denied the justice of the preacher's ascription to men of science of the doctrine that miracles are incredible, because they are violations of natural law; and the duke of argyll says that he believes my "denial to be well-founded. the preacher was answering an objection which has now been generally abandoned." either the preacher knew this or he did not know it. it seems to me, as a mere lay teacher, to be a pity that the "great dome of st. paul's" should have been made to "echo" (if so be that such stentorian effects were really produced) a statement which, admitting the first alternative, was unfair, and, admitting the second, was ignorant.[ ] having thus sacrified one half of the preacher's arguments, the duke of argyll proceeds to make equally short work with the other half. it appears that he fully accepts my position that the occurrence of those events, which the preacher speaks of as catastrophes, is no evidence of disorder, inasmuch as such catastrophes may be necessary occasional consequences of uniform changes. whence i conclude, his grace agrees with me, that the talk about royal laws "wrecking" ordinary laws may be eloquent metaphor, but is also nonsense. and now comes a further surprise. after having given these superfluous stabs to the slain body of the preacher's argument, my good ally remarks, with magnificent calmness: "so far, then, the preacher and the professor are at one." "let them smoke the calumet." by all means: smoke would be the most appropriate symbol of this wonderful attempt to cover a retreat. after all, the duke has come to bury the preacher, not to praise him; only he makes the funeral obsequies look as much like a triumphal procession as possible. so far as the questions between the preacher and myself are concerned, then, i may feel happy. the authority of the duke of argyll is ranged on my side. but the duke has raised a number of other questions, with respect to which i fear i shall have to dispense with his support--nay, even be compelled to differ from him as much, or more, than i have done about his grace's new rendering of the "benefit of clergy." in discussing catastrophes, the duke indulges in statements, partly scientific, partly anecdotic, which appear to me to be somewhat misleading. we are told, to begin with, that sir charles lyell's doctrine respecting the proper mode of interpreting the facts of geology (which is commonly called uniformitarianism) "does not hold its head quite so high as it once did." that is great news indeed. but is it true? all i can say is that i am aware of nothing that has happened of late that can in any way justify it; and my opinion is, that the body of lyell's doctrine, as laid down in that great work, "the principles of geology," whatever may have happened to its head, is a chief and permanent constituent of the foundations of geological science. but this question cannot he advantageously discussed, unless we take some pains to discriminate between the essential part of the uniformitarian doctrine and its accessories; and it does not appear that the duke of argyll has carried his studies of geological philosophy so far as this point. for he defines uniformitarianism to be the assumption of the "extreme slowness and perfect continuity of all geological changes." what "perfect continuity" may mean in this definition, i am by no means sure; but i can only imagine that it signifies the absence of any break in the course of natural order during the millions of years, the lapse of which is recorded by geological phenomena. is the duke of argyll prepared to say that any geologist of authority, at the present day, believes that there is the slightest evidence of the occurrence of supernatural intervention, during the long ages of which the monuments are preserved to us in the crust of the earth? and if he is not, in what sense has this part of the uniformitarian doctrine, as he defines it, lowered its pretensions to represent scientific truth? as to the "extreme slowness of all geological changes," it is simply a popular error to regard that as, in any wise, a fundamental and necessary dogma of uniformitarianism. it is extremely astonishing to me that any one who has carefully studied lyell's great work can have so completely failed to appreciate its purport, which yet is "writ large" on the very title-page: "the principles of geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the earth's surface by reference to causes now in operation." the essence of lyell's doctrine is here written so that those who run may read; and it has nothing to do with the quickness or slowness of the past changes of the earth's surface; except in so far as existing analogous changes may go on slowly, and therefore create a presumption in favour of the slowness of past changes. with that epigrammatic force which characterises his style, buffon wrote, nearly a hundred and fifty years ago, in his famous "théorie de la terre": "pour juger de ce qui est arrivé, et même de ce qui arrivera, nous n'avons qu'à examiner ce qui arrive." the key of the past, as of the future, is to be sought in the present; and, only when known causes of change have been shown to be insufficient, have we any right to have recourse to unknown causes. geology is as much a historical science as archæology; and i apprehend that all sound historical investigation rests upon this axiom. it underlay all hutton's work and animated lyell and scope in their successful efforts to revolutionise the geology of half a century ago. there is no antagonism whatever, and there never was, between the belief in the views which had their chief and unwearied advocate in lyell and the belief in the occurrence of catastrophes. the first edition of lyell's "principles," published in , lies before me; and a large part of the first volume is occupied by an account of volcanic, seismic, and diluvial catastrophes which have occurred within the historical period. moreover, the author, over and over again, expressly draws the attention of his readers to the consistency of catastrophes with his doctrine. notwithstanding, therefore, that we have not witnessed within the last three thousand years the devastation by deluge of a large continent, yet, as we may predict the future occurrence of such catastrophes, we are authorized to regard them as part of the present order of nature, and they may be introduced into geological speculations respecting the past, provided that we do not imagine them to have been more frequent or general than we expect them to be in time to come (vol. i. p. ). again:-- if we regard each of the causes separately, which we know to be at present the most instrumental in remodelling the state of the surface, we shall find that we must expect each to be in action for thousands of years, without producing any extensive alterations in the habitable surface, and then to give rise, during a very brief period, to important revolutions (vol. ii. p. ).[ ] lyell quarrelled with the catastrophists then, by no means because they assumed that catastrophes occur and have occurred, but because they had got into the habit of calling on their god catastrophe to help them, when they ought to have been putting their shoulders to the wheel of observation of the present course of nature, in order to help themselves out of their difficulties. and geological science has become what it is, chiefly because geologists have gradually accepted lyell's doctrine and followed his precepts. so far as i know anything about the matter, there is nothing that can be called proof, that the causes of geological phenomena operated more intensely or more rapidly, at any time between the older tertiary and the oldest palæozoic epochs than they have done between the older tertiary epoch and the present day. and if that is so, uniformitarianism, even as limited by lyell,[ ] has no call to lower its crest. but if the facts were otherwise, the position lyell took up remains impregnable. he did not say that the geological operations of nature were never more rapid, or more vast, than they are now; what he did maintain is the very different proposition that there is no good evidence of anything of the kind. and that proposition has not yet been shown to be incorrect. i owe more than i can tell to the careful study of the "principles of geology" in my young days; and, long before the year , my mind was familiar with the truth that "the doctrine of uniformity is not incompatible with great and sudden changes," which, as i have shown, is taught _totidem verbis_ in that work. even had it been possible for me to shut my eyes to the sense of what i had read in the "principles," whewell's "philosophy of the inductive sciences," published in , a work with which i was also tolerably familiar, must have opened them. for the always acute, if not always profound, author, in arguing against lyell's uniformitarianism, expressly points out that it does not in any way contravene the occurrence of catastrophes. with regard to such occurrences [earthquakes, deluges, etc.], terrible as they appear at the time, they may not much affect the average rate of change: there may be a _cycle_, though an irregular one, of rapid and slow change: and if such cycles go on succeeding each other, we may still call the order of nature uniform, notwithstanding the periods of violence which it involves.[ ] the reader who has followed me through this brief chapter of the history of geological philosophy will probably find the following passage in the paper of the duke of argyll to be not a little remarkable:-- many years ago, when i had the honor of being president of the british association,[ ] i ventured to point out, in the presence and in the hearing of that most distinguished man [sir c. lyell] that the doctrine of uniformity was not incompatible with great and sudden changes, since cycles of these and other cycles of comparative rest might well be constituent parts of that uniformity which he asserted. lyell did not object to this extended interpretation of his own doctrine, and indeed expressed to me his entire concurrence. i should think he did; for, as i have shown, there was nothing in it that lyell himself had not said, six-and-twenty years before, and enforced, three years before; and it is almost verbally identical with the view of uniformitarianism taken by whewell, sixteen years before, in a work with which, one would think, that any one who undertakes to discuss the philosophy of science should be familiar. thirty years have elapsed since the beginner of persuaded himself that he enlightened the foremost geologist of his time, and one of the most acute and far-seeing men of science of any time, as to the scope of the doctrines which the veteran philosopher had grown gray in promulgating; and the duke of argyll's acquaintance with the literature of geology has not, even now, become sufficiently profound to dissipate that pleasant delusion. if the duke of argyll's guidance in that branch of physical science, with which alone he has given evidence of any practical acquaintance, is thus unsafe, i may breathe more freely in setting my opinion against the authoritative deliverances of his grace about matters which lie outside the province of geology. and here the duke's paper offers me such a wealth of opportunities that choice becomes embarrassing. i must bear in mind the good old adage, "non multa sed multum." tempting as it would be to follow the duke through his labyrinthine misunderstandings of the ordinary terminology of philosophy and to comment on the curious unintelligibility which hangs about his frequent outpourings of fervid language, limits of space oblige me to restrict myself to those points, the discussion of which may help to enlighten the public in respect of matters of more importance than the competence of my mentor for the task which he has undertaken. i am not sure when the employment of the word law, in the sense in which we speak of laws of nature, commenced, but examples of it may be found in the works of bacon, descartes, and spinoza. bacon employs "law" as the equivalent of "form," and i am inclined to think that he may be responsible for a good deal of the confusion that has subsequently arisen; but i am not aware that the term is used by other authorities, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in any other sense than that of "rule" or "definite order" of the coexistence of things or succession of events in nature. descartes speaks of "règles, que je nomme les lois de la nature." leibnitz says "loi ou règle générale," as if he considered the terms interchangeable. the duke of argyll, however, affirms that the "law of gravitation" as put forth by newton was something more than the statement of an observed order. he admits that kepler's three laws "were an observed order of facts and nothing more." as to the law of gravitation, "it contains an element which kepler's laws did not contain, even an element of causation, the recognition of which belongs to a higher category of intellectual conceptions than that which is concerned in the mere observation and record of separate and apparently unconnected facts." there is hardly a line in these paragraphs which appears to me to be indisputable. but, to confine myself to the matter in hand, i cannot conceive that any one who had taken ordinary pains to acquaint himself with the real nature of either kepler's or newton's work could have written them. that the labours of kepler, of all men in the world, should be called "mere observation and record," is truly wonderful. and any one who will look into the "principia," or the "optics," or the "letters to bentley," will see, even if he has no more special knowledge of the topics discussed than i have, that newton over and over again insisted that he had nothing to do with gravitation as a physical cause, and that when he used the terms attraction, force, and the like, he employed them, as he says, "_mathematicè_" and not "_physicè_." how these attractions [of gravity, magnetism, and electricity] may be performed, i do not here consider. what i call attraction may be performed by impulse or by some other means unknown to me. i use that word here to signify only in a general way any force by which bodies tend towards one another, whatever be the cause.[ ] according to my reading of the best authorities upon the history of science, newton discovered neither gravitation, nor the law of gravitation; nor did he pretend to offer more than a conjecture as to the causation of gravitation. moreover, his assertion that the notion of a body acting where it is not, is one that no competent thinker could entertain, is antagonistic to the whole current conception of attractive and repulsive forces, and therefore of "the attractive force of gravitation." what, then, was that labour of unsurpassed magnitude and excellence and of immortal influence which newton did perform? in the first place, newton defined the laws, rules, or observed order of the phenomena of motion, which come under our daily observation, with greater precision than had been before attained; and, by following out, with marvellous power and subtlety, the mathematical consequences of these rules, he almost created the modern science of pure mechanics. in the second place, applying exactly the same method to the explication of the facts of astronomy as that which was applied a century and a half later to the facts of geology by lyell, he set himself to solve the following problem. assuming that all bodies, free to move, tend to approach one another as the earth and the bodies on it do; assuming that the strength of that tendency is directly as the mass and inversely as the squares of the distances; assuming that the laws of motion, determined for terrestrial bodies, hold good throughout the universe; assuming that the planets and their satellites were created and placed at their observed mean distances, and that each received a certain impulse from the creator; will the form of the orbits, the varying rates of motion of the planets, and the ratio between those rates and their distances from the sun, which must follow by mathematical reasoning from these premisses, agree with the order of facts determined by kepler and others, or not? newton, employing mathematical methods which are the admiration of adepts, but which no one but himself appears to have been able to use with ease, not only answered this question in the affirmative, but stayed not his constructive genius before it had founded modern physical astronomy. the historians of mechanical and of astronomical science appear to be agreed that he was the first person who clearly and distinctly put forth the hypothesis that the phenomena comprehended under the general name of "gravity" follow the same order throughout the universe, and that all material bodies exhibit these phenomena; so that, in this sense, the idea of universal gravitation may, doubtless, be properly ascribed to him. newton proved that the laws of kepler were particular consequences of the laws of motion and the law of gravitation--in other words, the reason of the first lay in the two latter. but to talk of the law of gravitation alone as the reason of kepler's laws, and still more as standing in any causal relation to kepler's laws, is simply a misuse of language. it would really be interesting if the duke of argyll would explain how he proposes to set about showing that the elliptical form of the orbits of the planets, the constant area described by the radius vector, and the proportionality of the squares of the periodic times to the cubes of the distances from the sun, are either caused by the "force of gravitation" or deducible from the "law of gravitation." i conceive that it would be about as apposite to say that the various compounds of nitrogen with oxygen are caused by chemical attraction and deducible from the atomic theory. * * * * * newton assuredly lent no shadow of support to the modern pseudo-scientific philosophy which confounds laws with causes. i have not taken the trouble to trace out this commonest of fallacies to its first beginning; but i was familiar with it in full bloom more than thirty years ago, in a work which had a great vogue in its day--the "vestiges of the natural history of creation"--of which the first edition was published in . it is full of apt and forcible illustrations of pseudo-scientific realism. consider, for example, this gem serene. when a boy who has climbed a tree loses his hold of the branch, "the law of gravitation unrelentingly pulls him to the ground, and then he is hurt," whereby the almighty is quite relieved from any responsibility for the accident. here is the "law of gravitation" acting as a cause in a way quite in accordance with the duke of argyll's conception of it. in fact, in the mind of the author of the "vestiges," "laws" are existences intermediate between the creator and his works, like the "ideas" of the platonisers or the logos of the alexandrians.[ ] i may cite a passage which is quite in the vein of philo:-- we have seen powerful evidences that the construction of this globe and its associates; and, inferentially, that of all the other globes in space, was the result, not of any immediate or personal exertion on the part of the deity, but of natural laws which are the expression of his will. what is to hinder our supposing that the organic creation is also a result of natural laws which are in like manner an expression of his will? (p. , st edition). and creation "operating by law" is constantly cited as relieving the creator from trouble about insignificant details. i am perplexed to picture to myself the state of mind which accepts these verbal juggleries. it is intelligible that the creator should operate according to such rules as he might think fit to lay down for himself (and therefore according to law); but that would leave the operation of his will just as much a direct personal act as it would be under any other circumstances. i can also understand that (as in leibnitz's caricature of newton's views) the creator might have made the cosmical machine, and, after setting it going, have left it to itself till it needed repair. but then, by the supposition, his personal responsibility would have been involved in all that it did; just as much as a dynamiter is responsible for what happens, when he has set his machine going and left it to explode. the only hypothesis which gives a sort of mad consistency to the vestigiarian's views is the supposition that laws are a kind of angels or demiurgoi, who, being supplied with the great architect's plan, were permitted to settle the details among themselves. accepting this doctrine, the conception of royal laws and plebeian laws, and of those more than homeric contests in which the big laws "wreck" the little ones, becomes quite intelligible. and, in fact, the honour of the paternity of those remarkable ideas which come into full flower in the preacher's discourse must, so far as my imperfect knowledge goes, be attributed to the author of the "vestiges." but the author of the "vestiges" is not the only writer who is responsible for the current pseudo-scientific mystifications which hang about the term "law." when i wrote my paper about "scientific and pseudo-scientific realism," i had not read a work by the duke of argyll, "the reign of law," which, i believe, has enjoyed, possibly still enjoys, a widespread popularity. but the vivacity of the duke's attack led me to think it possible that criticisms directed elsewhere might have come home to him. and, in fact, i find that the second chapter of the work in question, which is entitled "law; its definitions," is, from my point of view, a sort of "summa" of pseudo-scientific philosophy. it will be worth while to examine it in some detail. in the first place, it is to be noted that the author of the "reign of law" admits that "law," in many cases, means nothing more than the statement of the order in which facts occur, or, as he says, "an observed order of facts" (p. ). but his appreciation of the value of accuracy of expression does not hinder him from adding, almost in the same breath, "in this sense the laws of nature are simply those facts of nature which recur according to rule" (p. ). thus "laws," which were rightly said to be the statement of an order of facts in one paragraph, are declared to be the facts themselves in the next. we are next told that, though it may be customary and permissible to use "law" in the sense of a statement of the order of facts, this is a low use of the word; and, indeed, two pages farther on, the writer, flatly contradicting himself, altogether denies its admissibility. an observed order of facts, to be entitled to the rank of a law, must be an order so constant and uniform as to indicate necessity, and necessity can only arise out of the action of some compelling force (p. ). this is undoubtedly one of the most singular propositions that i have ever met with in a professedly scientific work, and its rarity is embellished by another direct self-contradiction which it implies. for on the preceding page ( ), when the duke of argyll is speaking of the laws of kepler, which he admits to be laws, and which are types of that which men of science understand by "laws," he says that they are "simply and purely an order of facts." moreover, he adds: "a very large proportion of the laws of every science are laws of this kind and in this sense." if, according to the duke of argyll's admission, law is understood, in this sense, thus widely and constantly by scientific authorities, where is the justification for his unqualified assertion that such statements of the observed order of facts are not "entitled to the rank" of laws? but let us examine the consequences of the really interesting proposition i have just quoted. i presume that it is a law of nature that "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points." this law affirms the constant association of a certain fact of form with a certain fact of dimension. whether the notion of necessity which attaches to it has an _a priori_, or an _a posteriori_ origin is a question not relevant to the present discussion. but i would beg to be informed, if it is necessary, where is the "compelling force" out of which the necessity arises; and further, if it is not necessary, whether it loses the character of a law of nature? i take it to be the law of nature, based on unexceptionable evidence, that the mass of matter remains unchanged, whatever chemical or other modifications it may undergo. this law is one of the foundations of chemistry. but it is by no means necessary. it is quite possible to imagine that the mass of matter should vary according to circumstances, as we know its weight does. moreover, the determination of the "force" which makes mass constant (if there is any intelligibility in that form of words) would not, so far as i can see, confer any more validity on the law than it has now. there is a law of nature, so well vouched by experience, that all mankind, from pure logicians in search of examples to parish sextons in search of fees, confide in it. this is the law that "all men are mortal." it is simply a statement of the observed order of facts that all men sooner or later die. i am not acquainted with any law of nature which is more "constant and uniform" than this. but will any one tell me that death is "necessary"? certainly there is no _à priori_ necessity in the case, for various men have been imagined to be immortal. and i should be glad to be informed of any "necessity" that can be deduced from biological considerations. it is quite conceivable, as has recently been pointed out, that some of the lowest forms of life may be immortal, after a fashion. however this may be, i would further ask, supposing "all men are mortal" to be a real law of nature, where and what is that to which, with any propriety, the title of "compelling force" of the law can be given? on page , the duke of argyll asserts that the law of gravitation "is a law in the sense, not merely of a rule, but of a cause." but this revival of the teaching of the "vestiges" has already been examined and disposed of; and when the duke of argyll states that the "observed order" which kepler had discovered was simply a necessary consequence of the force of "gravitation," i need not recapitulate the evidence which proves such a statement to be wholly fallacious. but it may be useful to say, once more, that, at this present moment, nobody knows anything about the existence of a "force" of gravitation apart from the fact; that newton declared the ordinary notion of such force to be inconceivable; that various attempts have been made to account for the order of facts we call gravitation, without recourse to the notion of attractive force; that, if such a force exists, it is utterly incompetent to account for kepler's laws, without taking into the reckoning a great number of other considerations; and, finally, that all we know about the "force" of gravitation, or any other so-called "force," is that it is a name for the hypothetical cause of an observed order of facts. thus, when the duke of argyll says: "force, ascertained according to some measure of its operation--this is indeed one of the definitions, but only one, of a scientific law" (p. ) i reply that it is a definition which must be repudiated by every one who possesses an adequate acquaintance with either the facts, or the philosophy, of science, and be relegated to the limbo of pseudo-scientific fallacies. if the human mind has never entertained this notion of "force," nay, if it substituted bare invariable succession for the ordinary notion of causation, the idea of law, as the expression of a constantly-observed order, which generates a corresponding intensity of expectation in our minds, would have exactly the same value, and play its part in real science, exactly as it does now. it is needless to extend further the present excursus on the origin and history of modern pseudo-science. under such high patronage as it has enjoyed, it has grown and flourished until, nowadays, it is becoming somewhat rampant. it has its weekly "ephemerides," in which every new pseudo-scientific mare's-nest is hailed and belauded with the unconscious unfairness of ignorance; and an army of "reconcilers," enlisted in its service, whose business seems to be to mix the black of dogma and the white of science into the neutral tint of what they call liberal theology. i remember that, not long after the publication of the "vestiges," a shrewd and sarcastic countryman of the author defined it as "cauld kail made het again." a cynic might find amusement in the reflection that, at the present time, the principles and the methods of the much-vilified vestigiarian are being "made het again"; and are not only "echoed by the dome of st. paul's," but thundered from the castle of inverary. but my turn of mind is not cynical, and i can but regret the waste of time and energy bestowed on the endeavour to deal with the most difficult problems of science, by those who have neither undergone the discipline, nor possess the information, which are indispensable to the successful issue of such an enterprise. i have already had occasion to remark that the duke of argyll's views of the conduct of controversy are different from mine; and this much-to-be lamented discrepancy becomes yet more accentuated when the duke reaches biological topics. anything that was good enough for sir charles lyell, in his department of study, is certainly good enough for me in mine; and i by no means demur to being pedagogically instructed about a variety of matters with which it has been the business of my life to try to acquaint myself. but the duke of argyll is not content with favouring me with his opinions about my own business; he also answers for mine; and, at that point, really the worm must turn. i am told that "no one knows better than professor huxley" a variety of things which i really do not know; and i am said to be a disciple of that "positive philosophy" which i have, over and over again, publicly repudiated in language which is certainly not lacking in intelligibility whatever may be its other defects. i am told that i have been amusing myself with a "metaphysical exercitation or logomachy" (may i remark incidentally that these are not quite convertible terms?), when, to the best of my belief, i have been trying to expose a process of mystification, based upon the use of scientific language by writers who exhibit no sign of scientific training, of accurate scientific knowledge, or of clear ideas respecting the philosophy of science, which is doing very serious harm to the public. naturally enough, they take the lion's skin of scientific phraseology for evidence that the voice which issues from beneath it is the voice of science, and i desire to relieve them from the consequences of their error. the duke of argyll asks, apparently with sorrow that it should be his duty to subject me to reproof-- what shall we say of a philosophy which confounds the organic with the inorganic, and, refusing to take note of a difference so profound, assumes to explain under one common abstraction, the movements due to gravitation and the movements due to the mind of man? to which i may fitly reply by another question: what shall we say to a controversialist who attributes to the subject of his attack opinions which are notoriously not his; and expresses himself in such a manner that it is obvious he is unacquainted with even the rudiments of that knowledge which is necessary to the discussion into which he has rushed? what line of my writing can the duke of argyll produce which confounds the organic with the inorganic? as to the latter half of the paragraph, i have to confess a doubt whether it has any definite meaning. but i imagine that the duke is alluding to my assertion that the law of gravitation is nowise "suspended" or "defied" when a man lifts his arm; but that, under such circumstances, part of the store of energy in the universe operates on the arm at a mechanical advantage as against the operation of another part. i was simple enough to think that no one who had as much knowledge of physiology as is to be found in an elementary primer, or who had ever heard of the greatest physical generalisation of modern times--the doctrine of the conservation of energy--would dream of doubting my statement; and i was further simple enough to think that no one who lacked these qualifications would feel tempted to charge me with error. it appears that my simplicity is greater than my powers of imagination. the duke of argyll may not be aware of the fact, but it is nevertheless true, that when a man's arm is raised, in sequence to that state of consciousness we call a volition, the volition is not the immediate cause of the elevation of the arm. on the contrary, that operation is effected by a certain change of form, technically known as "contraction" in sundry masses of flesh, technically known as muscles, which are fixed to the bones of the shoulder in such a manner that, if these muscles contract, they must raise the arm. now each of these muscles is a machine comparable, in a certain sense, to one of the donkey-engines of a steamship, but more complete, inasmuch as the source of its ability to change its form, or contract, lies within itself. every time that, by contracting, the muscle does work, such as that involved in raising the arm, more or less of the material which it contains is used up, just as more or less of the fuel of a steam-engine is used up, when it does work. and i do not think there is a doubt in the mind of any competent physicist, or physiologist, that the work done in lifting the weight of the arm is the mechanical equivalent of a certain proportion of the energy set free by the molecular changes which take place in the muscle. it is further a tolerably well-based belief that this, and all other forms of energy, are mutually convertible; and, therefore, that they all come under that general law or statement of the order of facts, called the conservation of energy. and, as that certainly is an abstraction, so the view which the duke of argyll thinks so extremely absurd is really one of the commonplaces of physiology. but this review is hardly an appropriate place for giving instruction in the elements of that science, and i content myself with recommending the duke of argyll to devote some study to book ii. chap. v. section of my friend dr. foster's excellent text-book of physiology ( st edition, , p. ), which begins thus:-- broadly speaking, the animal body is a machine for converting potential into actual energy. the potential energy is supplied by the food; this the metabolism of the body converts into the actual energy of heat and mechanical labour. there is no more difficult problem in the world than that of the relation of the state of consciousness, termed volition, to the mechanical work which frequently follows upon it. but no one can even comprehend the nature of the problem, who has not carefully studied the long series of modes of motion which, without a break, connect the energy which does that work with the general store of energy. the ultimate form of the problem is this: have we any reason to believe that a feeling, or state of consciousness, is capable of directly affecting the motion of even the smallest conceivable molecule of matter? is such a thing even conceivable? if we answer these questions in the negative, it follows that volition may be a sign, but cannot be a cause, of bodily motion. if we answer them in the affirmative, then states of consciousness become undistinguishable from material things; for it is the essential nature of matter to be the vehicle or substratum of mechanical energy. there is nothing new in all this. i have merely put into modern language the issue raised by descartes more than two centuries ago. the philosophies of the occasionalists, of spinoza, of malebranche, of modern idealism and modern materialism, have all grown out of the controversies which cartesianism evoked. of all this the pseudo-science of the present time appears to be unconscious; otherwise it would hardly content itself with "making het again" the pseudo-science of the past. in the course of these observations i have already had occasion to express my appreciation of the copious and perfervid eloquence which enriches the duke of argyll's pages. i am almost ashamed that a constitutional insensibility to the sirenian charms of rhetoric has permitted me in wandering through these flowery meads, to be attracted, almost exclusively, to the bare places of fallacy and the stony grounds of deficient information, which are disguised, though not concealed, by these floral decorations. but, in his concluding sentences, the duke soars into a tyrtæan strain which roused even my dull soul. it was high time, indeed, that some revolt should be raised against that reign of terror which had come to be established in the scientific world under the abuse of a great name. professor huxley has not joined this revolt openly, for as yet, indeed, it is only beginning to raise its head. but more than once--and very lately--he has uttered a warning voice against the shallow dogmatism that has provoked it. the time is coming when that revolt will be carried further. higher interpretations will be established. unless i am much mistaken, they are already coming in sight (p. ). i have been living very much out of the world for the last two or three years, and when i read this denunciatory outburst, as of one filled with the spirit of prophecy, i said to myself, "mercy upon us, what has happened? can it be that x. and y. (it would be wrong to mention the names of the vigorous young friends which occurred to me) are playing danton and robespierre; and that a guillotine is erected in the courtyard of burlington house for the benefit of all anti-darwinian fellows of the royal society? where are the secret conspirators against this tyranny, whom i am supposed to favour, and yet not have the courage to join openly? and to think of my poor oppressed friend, mr. herbert spencer, 'compelled to speak with bated breath' (p. ) certainly for the first time in my thirty-odd years' acquaintance with him!" my alarm and horror at the supposition that while i had been fiddling (or at any rate physicking), my beloved rome had been burning, in this fashion, may be imagined. i am sure the duke of argyll will be glad to hear that the anxiety he created was of extremely short duration. it is my privilege to have access to the best sources of information, and nobody in the scientific world can tell me anything about either the "reign of terror" or "the revolt." in fact, the scientific world laughs most indecorously at the notion of the existence of either; and some are so lost to the sense of the scientific dignity, that they descend to the use of transatlantic slang, and call it a "bogus scare." as to my friend mr. herbert spencer, i have every reason to know that, in the "factors of organic evolution," he has said exactly what was in his mind, without any particular deference to the opinions of the person whom he is pleased to regard as his most dangerous critic and devil's advocate-general, and still less of any one else. i do not know whether the duke of argyll pictures himself as the tallien of this imaginary revolt against a no less imaginary reign of terror. but if so, i most respectfully but firmly decline to join his forces. it is only a few weeks since i happened to read over again the first article which i ever wrote (now twenty-seven years ago) on the "origin of species," and i found nothing that i wished to modify in the opinions that are there expressed, though the subsequent vast accumulation of evidence in favour of mr. darwin's views would give me much to add. as is the case with all new doctrines, so with that of evolution, the enthusiasm of advocates has sometimes tended to degenerate into fanaticism; and mere speculation has, at times, threatened to shoot beyond its legitimate bounds. i have occasionally thought it wise to warn the more adventurous spirits among us against these dangers, in sufficiently plain language; and i have sometimes jestingly said that i expected, if i lived long enough, to be looked on as a reactionary by some of my more ardent friends. but nothing short of midsummer madness can account for the fiction that i am waiting till it is safe to join openly a revolt, hatched by some person or persons unknown, against an intellectual movement with which i am in the most entire and hearty sympathy. it is a great many years since, at the outset of my career, i had to think seriously what life had to offer that was worth having. i came to the conclusion that the chief good, for me, was freedom to learn, think, and say what i pleased, when i pleased. i have acted on that conviction, and have availed myself of the "rara temporum felicitas ubi sentire quæ velis, et quæ sentias dicere licet," which is now enjoyable, to the best of my ability; and though strongly, and perhaps wisely, warned that i should probably come to grief, i am entirely satisfied with the results of the line of action i have adopted. my career is at an end. i have warmed both hands before the fire of life; and nothing is left me, before i depart, but to help, or at any rate to abstain from hindering, the younger generation of men of science in doing better service to the cause we have at heart than i have been able to render. and yet, forsooth, i am supposed to be waiting for the signal of "revolt," which some fiery spirits among these young men are to raise before i dare express my real opinions concerning questions about which we older men had to fight, in the teeth of fierce public opposition and obloquy--of something which might almost justify even the grandiloquent epithet of a reign of terror--before our excellent successors had left school. it would appear that the spirit of pseudo-science has impregnated even the imagination of the duke of argyll. the scientific imagination always restrains itself within the limits of probability. footnotes: [ ] _nineteenth century_, march, . [ ] the duke of argyll speaks of the recent date of the demonstration of the fallacy of the doctrine in question. "recent" is a relative term, but i may mention that the question is fully discussed in my book on _hume_; which, if i may believe my publishers, has been read by a good many people since it appeared in . moreover, i observe, from a note at page of _the reign of law_, a work to which i shall have occasion to advert by and by, that the duke of argyll draws attention to the circumstance that, so long ago as , the views which i hold on this subject were well known. the duke, in fact, writing about this time, says, after quoting a phrase of mine: "the question of miracles seems now to be admitted on all hands to be simply a question of evidence." in science, we think that a teacher who ignores views which have been discussed _coram populo_ for twenty years, is hardly up to the mark. [ ] see also vol. i. p. . in the ninth edition ( ), published twenty-three years after the first. lyell deprives even the most careless reader of any excuse for misunderstanding him: "so in regard to subterranean movements, the theory of the perpetual uniformity of the force which they exert on the earth-crust is quite consistent with the admission of their alternate development and suspension for indefinite periods within limited geographical areas" (p. ). [ ] a great many years ago (presidential address to the geological society, ) i ventured to indicate that which seemed to me to be the weak point, not in the fundamental principles of uniformitarianism, but in uniformitarianism as taught by lyell. it lay, to my mind, in the refusal by hutton, and in a less degree by lyell, to look beyond the limits of the time recorded by the stratified rocks. i said: "this attempt to limit, at a particular point, the progress of inductive and deductive reasoning from the things which are to the things which were--this faithlessness to its own logic, seems to me to have cost uniformitarianism the place as the permanent form of geological speculation which it might otherwise have held" (_lay sermons_, p. ). the context shows that "uniformitarianism" here means that doctrine, as limited in application by hutton and lyell, and that what i mean by "evolutionism" is consistent and thorough-going uniformitarianism. [ ] _philosophy of the inductive sciences_, vol. i. p. . new edition, . [ ] at glasgow in . [ ] _optics_, query . [ ] the author recognises this in his _explanations_. iv: an episcopal trilogy [ ] if there is any truth in the old adage that a burnt child dreads the fire, i ought to be very loath to touch a sermon, while the memory of what befell me on a recent occasion, possibly not yet forgotten by the readers of the _nineteenth century_, is uneffaced. but i suppose that even the distinguished censor of that unheard-of audacity to which not even the newspaper report of a sermon is sacred, can hardly regard a man of science as either indelicate or presumptuous, if he ventures to offer some comments upon three discourses, specially addressed to the great assemblage of men of science which recently gathered at manchester, by three bishops of the state church. on my return to england not long ago, i found a pamphlet[ ] containing a version, which i presume to be authorised, of these sermons, among the huge mass of letters and papers which had accumulated during two months' absence; and i have read them not only with attentive interest, but with a feeling of satisfaction which is quite new to me as a result of hearing, or reading, sermons. these excellent discourses, in fact, appear to me to signalise a new departure in the course adopted by theology towards science, and to indicate the possibility of bringing about an honourable _modus vivendi_ between the two. how far the three bishops speak as accredited representatives of the church is a question to be considered by and by. most assuredly, i am not authorised to represent any one but myself. but i suppose that there must be a good many people in the church of the bishops' way of thinking; and i have reason to believe that, in the ranks of science, there are a good many persons who, more or less, share my views. and it is to these sensible people on both sides, as the bishops and i must needs think those who agree with us, that my present observations are addressed. they will probably be astonished to learn how insignificant, in principle, their differences are. it is impossible to read the discourses of the three prelates without being impressed by the knowledge which they display, and by the spirit of equity, i might say of generosity, towards science which pervades them. there is no trace of that tacit or open assumption that the rejection of theological dogmas, on scientific grounds, is due to moral perversity, which is the ordinary note of ecclesiastical homilies on this subject, and which makes them look so supremely silly to men whose lives have been spent in wrestling with these questions. there is no attempt to hide away real stumbling-blocks under rhetorical stucco; no resort to the _tu quoque_ device of setting scientific blunders against theological errors; no suggestion that an honest man may keep contradictory beliefs in separate pockets of his brain; no question that the method of scientific investigation is valid, whatever the results to which it may lead; and that the search after truth, and truth only, ennobles the searcher and leaves no doubt that his life, at any rate, is worth living. the bishop of carlisle declares himself pledged to the belief that "the advancement of science, the progress of human knowledge, is in itself a worthy aim of the greatest effort of the greatest minds." how often was it my fate, a quarter of a century ago, to see the whole artillery of the pulpit brought to bear upon the doctrine of evolution and its supporters! any one unaccustomed to the amenities of ecclesiastical controversy would have thought we were too wicked to be permitted to live. but let us hear the bishop of bedford. after a perfectly frank statement of the doctrine of evolution and some of its obvious consequences, that learned prelate pleads, with all earnestness, against a hasty denunciation of what _may_ be proved to have at least some elements of truth in it, a contemptuous rejection of theories which we _may_ some day learn to accept as freely and with as little sense of inconsistency with god's word as we now accept the theory of the earth's motion round the sun, or the long duration of the geological epochs (p. ). i do not see that the most convinced evolutionist could ask any one, whether cleric or layman, to say more than this; in fact, i do not think that any one has a right to say more, with respect to any question about which two opinions can he held, than that his mind is perfectly open to the force of evidence. there is another portion of the bishop of bedford's sermon which i think will be warmly appreciated by all honest and clear-headed men. he repudiates the views of those who say that theology and science occupy wholly different spheres, and need in no way intermeddle with each other. they revolve, as it were, in different planes, and so never meet. thus we may pursue scientific studies with the utmost freedom and, at the same time, may pay the most reverent regard to theology, having no fears of collision, because allowing no points of contact (p. ). surely every unsophisticated mind will heartily concur with the bishop's remark upon this convenient refuge for the descendants of mr. facing-both-ways. "i have never been able to understand this position though i have often seen it assumed." nor can any demurrer be sustained when the bishop proceeds to point out that there are, and must be, various points of contact between theological and natural science, and therefore that it is foolish to ignore or deny the existence of as many dangers of collision. finally, the bishop of manchester freely admits the force of the objections which have been raised, on scientific grounds, to prayer, and attempts to turn them by arguing that the proper objects of prayer are not physical but spiritual. he tells us that natural accidents and moral misfortunes are not to be taken for moral judgments of god; he admits the propriety of the application of scientific methods to the investigation of the origin and growth of religions; and he is as ready to recognise the process of evolution there, as in the physical world. mark the following striking passage:-- and how utterly all the common objections to divine revelation vanish away when they are set in the light of this theory of a spiritual progression. are we reminded that there prevailed, in those earlier days, views of the nature of god and man, of human life and divine providence, which we now find to be untenable? _that_, we answer, is precisely what the theory of development presupposes. if early views of religion and morality had not been imperfect, where had been the development? if symbolical visions and mythical creations had found no place in the early oriental expression of divine truth, where had been the development? the sufficient answer to ninety-nine out of a hundred of the ordinary objections to the bible, as the record of a divine education of our race, is asked in that one word--development. and to what are we indebted for that potent word, which, as with the wand of a magician, has at the same moment so completely transformed our knowledge and dispelled our difficulties? to modern science, resolutely pursuing its search for truth in spite of popular obloquy and--alas! that one should have to say it--in spite too often of theological denunciation (p. ). apart from its general importance, i read this remarkable statement with the more pleasure, since, however imperfectly i may have endeavoured to illustrate the evolution of theology in a paper published in the _nineteenth century_ last year,[ ] it seems to me that in principle, at any rate, i may hereafter claim high theological sanction for the views there set forth. if theologians are henceforward prepared to recognise the authority of secular science in the manner and to the extent indicated in the manchester trilogy; if the distinguished prelates who offer these terms are really plenipotentiaries, then, so far as i may presume to speak on such a matter, there will be no difficulty about concluding a perpetual treaty of peace, and indeed of alliance, between the high contracting powers, whose history has hitherto been little more than a record of continual warfare. but if the great chancellor's maxim, "do ut des," is to form the basis of negotiation, i am afraid that secular science will be ruined; for it seems to me that theology, under the generous impulse of a sudden conversion, has given all that she hath; and indeed, on one point, has surrendered more than can reasonably be asked. i suppose i must be prepared to face the reproach which attaches to those who criticise a gift, if i venture to observe that i do not think that the bishop of manchester need have been so much alarmed, as he evidently has been, by the objections which have often been raised to prayer, on the ground that a belief in the efficacy of prayer is inconsistent with a belief in the constancy of the order of nature. the bishop appears to admit that there is an antagonism between the "regular economy of nature" and the "regular economy of prayer" (p. ), and that "prayers for the interruption of god's natural order" are of "doubtful validity" (p. ). it appears to me that the bishop's difficulty simply adds another example to those which i have several times insisted upon in the pages of this review and elsewhere, of the mischief which has been done, and is being done, by a mistaken apprehension of the real meaning of "natural order" and "law of nature." may i, therefore, be permitted to repeat, once more, that the statements denoted by these terms have no greater value or cogency than such as may attach to generalisations from experience of the past, and to expectations for the future based upon that experience? nobody can presume to say what the order of nature must be; all that the widest experience (even if it extended over all past time and through all space) that events had happened in a certain way could justify, would be a proportionally strong expectation that events will go on happening, and the demand for a proportional strength of evidence in favour of any assertion that they had happened otherwise. it is this weighty consideration, the truth of which every one who is capable of logical thought must surely admit, which knocks the bottom out of all _à priori_ objections either to ordinary "miracles" or to the efficacy of prayer, in so far as the latter implies the miraculous intervention of a higher power. no one is entitled to say _à priori_ that any given so-called miraculous event is impossible; and no one is entitled to say _à priori_ that prayer for some change in the ordinary course of nature cannot possibly avail. the supposition that there is any inconsistency between the acceptance of the constancy of natural order and a belief in the efficacy of prayer, is the more unaccountable as it is obviously contradicted by analogies furnished by everyday experience. the belief in the efficacy of prayer depends upon the assumption that there is somebody, somewhere, who is strong enough to deal with the earth and its contents as men deal with the things and events which they are strong enough to modify or control; and who is capable of being moved by appeals such as men make to one another. this belief does not even involve theism; for our earth is an insignificant particle of the solar system, while the solar system is hardly worth speaking of in relation to the all; and, for anything that can be proved to the contrary, there may be beings endowed with full powers over our system, yet, practically, as insignificant as ourselves in relation to the universe. if any one pleases, therefore, to give unrestrained liberty to his fancy, he may plead analogy in favour of the dream that there may be, somewhere, a finite being, or beings, who can play with the solar system as a child plays with a toy; and that such being may be willing to do anything which he is properly supplicated to do. for we are not justified in saying that it is impossible for beings having the nature of men, only vastly more powerful, to exist; and if they do exist, they may act as and when we ask them to do so, just as our brother men act. as a matter of fact, the great mass of the human race has believed, and still believes, in such beings, under the various names of fairies, gnomes, angels, and demons. certainly i do not lack faith in the constancy of natural order. but i am not less convinced that if i were to ask the bishop of manchester to do me a kindness which lay within his power, he would do it. and i am unable to see that his action on my request involves any violation of the order of nature. on the contrary, as i have not the honour to know the bishop personally, my action would be based upon my faith, in that "law of nature," or generalisation from experience, which tells me that, as a rule, men who occupy the bishop's position are kindly and courteous. how is the case altered if my request is preferred to some imaginary superior being, or to the most high being, who, by the supposition, is able to arrest disease, or make the sun stand still in the heavens, just as easily as i can stop my watch, or make it indicate any hour that pleases me? i repeat that it is not upon any _à priori_ considerations that objections, either to the supposed efficacy of prayer in modifying the course of events, or to the supposed occurrence of miracles, can be scientifically based. the real objection, and, to my mind, the fatal objection, to both these suppositions, is the inadequacy of the evidence to prove any given case of such occurrences which has been adduced. it is a canon of common sense, to say nothing of science, that the more improbable a supposed occurrence, the more cogent ought to be the evidence in its favour. i have looked somewhat carefully into the subject, and i am unable to find in the records of any miraculous event evidence which even approximates to the fulfilment of this requirement. but, in the case of prayer, the bishop points out a most just and necessary distinction between its effect on the course of nature, outside ourselves, and its effect within the region of the supplicator's mind. it is a "law of nature," verifiable by everyday experience, that our already formed convictions, our strong desires, our intent occupation with particular ideas, modify our mental operations to a most marvellous extent, and produce enduring changes in the direction and in the intensity of our intellectual and moral activities. men can intoxicate themselves with ideas as effectually as with alcohol or with bang, and produce, by dint of intense thinking, mental conditions hardly distinguishable from monomania. demoniac possession is mythical; but the faculty of being possessed, more or less completely, by an idea is probably the fundamental condition of what is called genius, whether it show itself in the saint, the artist, or the man of science. one calls it faith, another calls it inspiration, a third calls it insight; but the "intending of the mind," to borrow newton's well-known phrase, the concentration of all the rays of intellectual energy on some one point, until it glows and colours the whole cast of thought with its peculiar light, is common to all. i take it that the bishop of manchester has psychological science with him when he insists upon the subjective efficacy of prayer in faith, and on the seemingly miraculous effects which such "intending of the mind" upon religious and moral ideals may have upon character and happiness. scientific faith, at present, takes it no further than the prayer which ajax offered; but that petition is continually granted. whatever points of detail may yet remain open for discussion, however, i repeat the opinion i have already expressed, that the manchester sermons concede all that science, has an indisputable right, or any pressing need, to ask, and that not grudgingly but generously; and, if the three bishops of carry the church with them, i think they will have as good title to the permanent gratitude of posterity as the famous seven who went to the tower in defence of the church two hundred years ago. will their brethren follow their just and prudent guidance? i have no such acquaintance with the currents of ecclesiastical opinion as would justify me in even hazarding a guess on such a difficult topic. but some recent omens are hardly favourable. there seems to be an impression abroad--i do not desire to give any countenance to it--that i am fond of reading sermons. from time to time, unknown correspondents--some apparently animated by the charitable desire to promote my conversion, and others unmistakably anxious to spur me to the expression of wrathful antagonism--favour me with reports or copies of such productions. i found one of the latter category among the accumulated arrears to which i have already referred. it is a full, and apparently accurate, report of a discourse by a person of no less ecclesiastical rank than the three authors of the sermons i have hitherto been considering; but who he is, and where or when the sermon was preached, are secrets which wild horses shall not tear from me, lest i fall again under high censure for attacking a clergyman. only if the editor of this review thinks it his duty to have independent evidence that the sermon has a real existence, will i, in the strictest confidence, communicate it to him. the preacher, in this case, is of a very different mind from the three bishops--and this mind is different in quality, different in spirit, and different in contents. he discourses on the _à priori_ objections to miracles, apparently without being aware, in spite of all the discussions of the last seven or eight years, that he is doing battle with a shadow. i trust i do not misrepresent the bishop of manchester in saying that the essence of his remarkable discourse is the insistence upon the "supreme importance of the purely spiritual in our faith," and of the relative, if not absolute, insignificance of aught else. he obviously perceives the bearing of his arguments against the alterability of the course of outward nature by prayer, on the question of miracles in general; for he is careful to say that "the possibility of miracles, of a rare and unusual transcendence of the world order is not here in question" (p. ). it may be permitted me to suppose, however, that, if miracles were in question, the speaker who warns us "that we must look for the heart of the absolute religion in that part of it which prescribes our moral and religious relations" (p. ) would not be disposed to advise those who had found the heart of christianity to take much thought about its miraculous integument. my anonymous sermon will have nothing to do with such notions as these, and its preacher is not too polite, to say nothing of charitable, towards those who entertain them. scientific men, therefore, are perfectly right in asserting that christianity rests on miracles. if miracles never happened, christianity, in any sense which is not a mockery, which does not make the term of none effect, has no reality. i dwell on this because there is now an effort making to get up a non-miraculous, invertebrate christianity, which may escape the ban of science. and i would warn you very distinctly against this new contrivance. christianity is essentially miraculous, and falls to the ground if miracles be impossible. well, warning for warning. i venture to warn this preacher and those who, with him, persist in identifying christianity with the miraculous, that such forms of christianity are not only doomed to fall to the ground; but that, within the last half century, they have been driving that way with continually accelerated velocity. the so-called religious world is given to a strange delusion. it fondly imagines that it possesses the monopoly of serious and constant reflection upon the terrible problems of existence; and that those who cannot accept its shibboleths are either mere gallios, caring for none of these things, or libertines desiring to escape from the restraints of morality. it does not appear to have entered the imaginations of these people that, outside their pale and firmly resolved never to enter it, there are thousands of men, certainly not their inferiors in character, capacity, or knowledge of the questions at issue, who estimate those purely spiritual elements of the christian faith of which the bishop of manchester speaks as highly as the bishop does; but who will have nothing to do with the christian churches, because in their apprehension and for them, the profession of belief in the miraculous, on the evidence offered would be simply immoral. so far as my experience goes, men of science are neither better nor worse than the rest of the world. occupation with the endlessly great parts of the universe does not necessarily involve greatness of character, nor does microscopic study of the infinitely little always produce humility. we have our full share of original sin; need, greed, and vainglory beset us as they do other mortals; and our progress is, for the most part, like that of a tacking ship, the resultant of opposite divergencies from the straight path. but, for all that, there is one moral benefit which the pursuit of science unquestionably bestows. it keeps the estimate of the value of evidence up to the proper mark; and we are constantly receiving lessons, and sometimes very sharp ones, on the nature of proof. men of science will always act up to their standard of veracity, when mankind in general leave off sinning; but that standard appears to me to be higher among them than in any other class of the community. i do not know any body of scientific men who could be got to listen without the strongest expressions of disgusted repudiation to the exposition of a pretended scientific discovery, which had no better evidence to show for itself than the story of the devils entering a herd of swine, or of the fig-tree that was blasted for bearing no figs when "it was not the season of figs." whether such events are possible or impossible, no man can say; but scientific ethics can and does declare that the profession of belief in them, on the evidence of documents of unknown date and of unknown authorship, is immoral. theological apologists who insist that morality will vanish if their dogmas are exploded, would do well to consider the fact that, in the matter of intellectual veracity, science is already a long way ahead of the churches; and that, in this particular, it is exerting an educational influence on mankind of which the churches have shown themselves utterly incapable. undoubtedly that varying compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of paganism and judaism, moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the western world, which, since the second century, has assumed to itself the title of orthodox christianity, "rests on miracles" and falls to the ground, not "if miracles be impossible," but if those to which it is committed prove themselves unable to fulfil the conditions of honest belief. that this christianity is doomed to fall is, to my mind, beyond a doubt; but its fall will be neither sudden nor speedy. the church, with all the aid lent it by the secular arm, took many centuries to extirpate the open practice of pagan idolatry within its own fold; and those who have travelled in southern europe will be aware that it has not extirpated the essence of such idolatry even yet. _mutato nomine_, it is probable that there is as much sheer fetichism among the roman populace now as there was eighteen hundred years ago; and if marcus antonius could descend from his horse and ascend the steps of the ara coeli church about twelfth day, the only thing that need strike him would be the extremely contemptible character of the modern idols as works of art. science will certainly neither ask for, nor receive, the aid of the secular arm. it will trust to the much better and more powerful help of that education in scientific truth and in the morals of assent, which is rendered as indispensable, as it is inevitable, by the permeation of practical life with the products and ideas of science. but no one who considers the present state of even the most developed countries can doubt that the scientific light that has come into the world will have to shine in the midst of darkness for a long time. the urban populations, driven into contact with science by trade and manufacture, will more and more receive it, while the _pagani_ will lag behind. let us hope that no julian may arise among them to head a forlorn hope against the inevitable. whatever happens, science may bide her time in patience and in confidence. but to return to my "anonymous." i am afraid that if he represents any great party in the church, the spirit of justice and reasonableness which animates the three bishops has as slender a chance of being imitated, on a large scale, as their common sense and their courtesy. for, not contented with misrepresenting science on its speculative side, "anonymous" attacks its morality. for two whole years, investigations and conclusions which would upset the theories of darwin on the formation of coral islands were actually suppressed, and that by the advice even of those who accepted them, _for fear of upsetting the faith and disturbing the judgment formed by the multitude on the scientific character--the infallibility--of the great master_! so far as i know anything about the matters which are here referred to, the part of this passage which i have italicised is absolutely untrue. i believe that i am intimately acquainted with all mr. darwin's immediate scientific friends: and i say that no one of them, nor any other man of science known to me, ever could, or would, have given such advice to any one--if for no other reason than that, with the example of the most candid and patient listener to objections that ever lived fresh in their memories, they could not so grossly have at once violated their highest duty and dishonoured their friend. the charge thus brought by "anonymous" affects the honour and the probity of men of science; if it is true, we have forfeited all claim to the confidence of the general public. in my belief it is utterly false, and its real effect will be to discredit those who are responsible for it. as is the way with slanders, it has grown by repetition. "anonymous" is responsible for the peculiarly offensive form which it has taken in his hands; but he is not responsible for originating it. he has evidently been inspired by an article entitled "a great lesson," published in the september number of this review. truly it is "a great lesson," but not quite in the sense intended by the giver thereof. in the course of his doubtless well-meant admonitions, the duke of argyll commits himself to a greater number of statements which are demonstrably incorrect and which any one who ventured to write upon the subject ought to have known to be incorrect, than i have ever seen gathered together in so small a space. i submit a gathering from the rich store for the appreciation of the public. first:-- mr. murray's new explanation of the structure of coral-reefs and islands was communicated to the royal society of edinburgh in , and supported with such a weight of facts and such a close texture of reasoning, that no serious reply has ever been attempted (p. ). "no serious reply has ever been attempted"! i suppose that the duke of argyll may have heard of professor dana, whose years of labour devoted to corals and coral-reefs when he was naturalist of the american expedition under commodore wilkes, more than forty years ago, have ever since caused him to be recognised as an authority of the first rank on such subjects. now does his grace know, or does he not know, that, in the year , professor dana published an elaborate paper "on the origin of coral-reefs and islands," in which, after referring to a presidential address by the director of the geological survey of great britain and ireland delivered in , in which special attention is directed to mr. murray's views professor dana says:-- the existing state of doubt on the question has led the writer to reconsider the earlier and later facts, and in the following pages he gives his results. professor dana then devotes many pages of his very "serious reply" to a most admirable and weighty criticism of the objections which have at various times been raised to mr. darwin's doctrine, by professor semper, by dr. rein, and finally by mr. murray, and he states his final judgment as follows:-- with the theory of abrasion and solution incompetent, all the hypotheses of objectors to darwin's theory are alike weak; for all have made these processes their chief reliance, whether appealing to a calcareous, or a volcanic, or a mountain-peak basement for the structure. the subsidence which the darwinian theory requires has not been opposed by the mention of any fact at variance with it, nor by setting aside darwin's arguments in its favour; and it has found new support in the facts from the "challenger's" soundings off tahiti, that had been put in array against it, and strong corroboration in the facts from the west indies. darwin's theory, therefore, remains as the theory that accounts for the origin of reefs and islands.[ ] be it understood that i express no opinion on the controverted points. i doubt if there are ten living men who, having a practical knowledge of what a coral-reef is, have endeavoured to master the very difficult biological and geological problems involved in their study. i happen to have spent the best part of three years among coral-reefs and to have made that attempt; and, when mr. murray's work appeared, i said to myself that until i had two or three months to give to the renewed study of the subject in all its bearings, i must be content to remain in a condition of suspended judgment. in the meanwhile, the man who would be voted by common acclamation as the most competent person now living to act as umpire, has delivered the verdict i have quoted; and, to go no further, has fully justified the hesitation i and others may have felt about expressing an opinion. under these circumstances, it seems to me to require a good deal of courage to say "no serious reply has ever been attempted"; and to chide the men of science, in lofty tones, for their "reluctance to admit an error" which is not admitted; and for their "slow and sulky acquiescence" in a conclusion which they have the gravest warranty for suspecting. second:-- darwin himself had lived to hear of the new solution and, with that splendid candour which was eminent in him his mind, though now grown old in his own early convictions, was at least ready to entertain it, and to confess that serious doubts had been awakened as to the truth of his famous theory (p. ). i wish that darwin's splendid candour could be conveyed by some description of spiritual "microbe" to those who write about him. i am not aware that mr. darwin ever entertained "serious doubts as to the truth of his famous theory"; and there is tolerably good evidence to the contrary. the second edition of his work, published in , proves that he entertained no such doubts then; a letter to professor semper, whose objections, in some respects, forestalled those of mr. murray, dated october , , expresses his continued adherence to the opinion "that the atolls and barrier reefs in the middle of the pacific and indian oceans indicate subsidence"; and the letter of my friend professor judd, printed at the end of this article (which i had perhaps better say professor judd had not seen) will prove that this opinion remained unaltered to the end of his life. third:-- ... darwin's theory is a dream. it is not only unsound, but it is in many respects the reverse of truth. with all his conscientiousness, with all his caution, with all his powers of observation, darwin in this matter fell into errors as profound as the abysses of the pacific (p. ). really? it seems to me that, under the circumstances, it is pretty clear that these lines exhibit a lack of the qualities justly ascribed to mr. darwin, which plunges their author into a much deeper abyss, and one from which there is no hope of emergence. fourth:-- all the acclamations with which it was received were as the shouts of an ignorant mob (p. ). but surely it should be added that the coryphæus of this ignorant mob, the fugleman of the shouts, was one of the most accomplished naturalists and geologists now living--the american dana--who, after years of independent study extending over numerous reefs in the pacific, gave his hearty assent to darwin's views, and after all that had been said, deliberately reaffirmed that assent in the year . fifth:-- the overthrow of darwin's speculation is only beginning to be known. it has been whispered for some time. the cherished dogma has been dropping very slowly out of sight (p. ). darwin's speculation may be right or wrong, but i submit that that which has not happened cannot even begin to be known, except by those who have miraculous gifts to which we poor scientific people do not aspire. the overthrow of darwin's views may have been whispered by those who hoped for it; and they were perhaps wise in not raising their voices above a whisper. incorrect statements, if made too loudly, are apt to bring about unpleasant consequences. sixth:-- mr. murray's views, published in , are said to have met with "slow and sulky acquiescence" (p. ). i have proved that they cannot be said to have met with general acquiescence of any sort, whether quick and cheerful, or slow and sulky; and if this assertion is meant to convey the impression that mr. murray's views have been ignored, that there has been a conspiracy of silence against them, it is utterly contrary to notorious fact. professor geikie's well-known "textbook of geology" was published in , and at pages - of that work there is a careful exposition of mr. murray's views. moreover professor geikie has specially advocated them on other occasions,[ ] notably in a long article on "the origin of coral-reefs," published in two numbers of "nature" for , and in a presidential address delivered in the same year. if, in so short a time after the publication of his views, mr. murray could boast of a convert, so distinguished and influential as the director of the geological survey, it seems to me that this wonderful _conspiration de silence_ (which has about as much real existence as the duke of argyll's other bogie, "the reign of terror ") must have _ipso facto_ collapsed. i wish that, when i was a young man, my endeavours to upset some prevalent errors had met with as speedy and effectual backing. seventh:-- ... mr. john murray was strongly advised against the publication of his views in derogation of darwin's long-accepted theory of the coral islands, and was actually induced to delay it for two years. yet the late sir wyville thomson, who was at the head of the naturalists of the "challenger" expedition, was himself convinced by mr. murray's reasoning (p. ). clearly, then, it could not be mr. murray's official chief who gave him this advice. who was it? and what was the exact nature of the advice given? until we have some precise information on this head, i shall take leave to doubt whether this statement is more accurate than those which i have previously cited. whether such advice was wise or foolish, just or immoral, depends entirely on the motive of the person who gave it. if he meant to suggest to mr. murray that it might be wise for a young and comparatively unknown man to walk warily, when he proposed to attack a generalisation based on many years' labour of one undoubtedly competent person, and fortified by the independent results of the many years' labour of another undoubtedly competent person; and even, if necessary, to take two whole years in fortifying his position, i think that such advice would have been sagacious and kind. i suppose that there are few working men of science who have not kept their ideas to themselves, while gathering and sifting evidence, for a much longer period than two years. if, on the other hand, mr. murray was advised to delay the publication of his criticisms, simply to save mr. darwin's credit and to preserve some reputation for infallibility, which no one ever heard of, then i have no hesitation in declaring that his adviser was profoundly dishonest, as well as extremely foolish; and that, if he is a man of science, he has disgraced his calling. but, after all, this supposed scientific achitophel has not yet made good the primary fact of his existence. until the needful proof is forthcoming, i think i am justified in suspending my judgment as to whether he is much more than an anti-scientific myth. i leave it to the duke of argyll to judge of the extent of the obligation under which, for his own sake, he may lie to produce the evidence on which his aspersions of the honour of scientific men are based. i cannot pretend that we are seriously disturbed by charges which every one who is acquainted with the truth of the matter knows to be ridiculous; but mud has a habit of staining if it lies too long, and it is as well to have it brushed off as soon as may be. so much for the "great lesson." it is followed by a "little lesson," apparently directed against my infallibility--a doctrine about which i should be inclined to paraphrase wilkes's remark to george the third, when he declared that he, at any rate, was not a wilkite. but i really should be glad to think that there are people who need the warning, because then it will be obvious that this raking up of an old story cannot have been suggested by a mere fanatical desire to damage men of science. i can but rejoice, then, that these misguided enthusiasts, whose faith, in me has so far exceeded the bounds of reason, should be set right. but that "want of finish" in the matter of accuracy which so terribly mars the effect of the "great lesson," is no less conspicuous in the case of the "little lesson," and, instead of setting my too fervent disciples right, it will set them wrong. the duke of argyll, in telling the story of _bathybius_, says that my mind was "caught by this new and grand generalisation of the physical basis of life." i never have been guilty of a reclamation about anything to my credit, and i do not mean to be; but if there is any blame going, i do not choose to be relegated to a subordinate place when i have a claim to the first. the responsibility for the first description and the naming of _bathybius_ is mine and mine only. the paper on "some organisms living at great depths in the atlantic ocean," in which i drew attention to this substance, is to be found by the curious in the eighth volume of the "quarterly journal of microscopical science," and was published in the year . whatever errors are contained in that paper are my own peculiar property; but neither at the meeting of the british association in , nor anywhere else, have i gone beyond what is there stated; except in so far that, at a long-subsequent meeting of the association, being importuned about the subject, i ventured to express, somewhat emphatically, the wish that the thing was at the bottom of the sea. what is meant by my being caught by a generalisation about the physical basis of life i do not know; still less can i understand the assertion that _bathybius_ was accepted because of its supposed harmony with darwin's speculations. that which interested me in the matter was the apparent analogy of _bathybius_ with other well-known forms of lower life, such as the plasmodia of the myxomycetes and the rhizopods. speculative hopes or fears had nothing to do with the matter; and if _bathybius_ were brought up alive from the bottom of the atlantic to-morrow, the fact would not have the slightest bearing, that i can discern, upon mr. darwin's speculations, or upon any of the disputed problems of biology. it would merely be one elementary organism the more added to the thousands already known. up to this moment i was not aware of the universal favour with which _bathybius_ was received.[ ] those simulators of an "ignorant mob" who, according to the duke of argyll, welcomed darwin's theory of coral-reefs, made no demonstration in my favour, unless his grace includes sir wyville thomson, dr. carpenter, dr. bessels, and professor haeckel under that head. on the contrary, a sagacious friend of mine, than whom there was no more competent judge, the late mr. george busk, was not to be converted; while, long before the "challenger" work, ehrenberg wrote to me very sceptically; and i fully expected that that eminent man would favour me with pretty sharp criticism. unfortunately, he died shortly afterwards, and nothing from him, that i know of, appeared. when sir wyville thomson wrote to me a brief account of the results obtained on board the "challenger" i sent this statement to "nature," in which journal it appeared the following week, without any further note or comment than was needful to explain the circumstances. in thus allowing judgment to go by default, i am afraid i showed a reckless and ungracious disregard for the feelings of the believers in my infallibility. no doubt i ought to have hedged and fenced and attenuated the effect of sir wyville thomson's brief note in every possible way. or perhaps i ought to have suppressed the note altogether, on the ground that it was a mere _ex parte_ statement. my excuse is that, notwithstanding a large and abiding faith in human folly, i did not know then, any more than i know now, that there was anybody foolish enough to be unaware that the only people scientific or other, who never make mistakes are those who do nothing; or that anybody, for whose opinion i cared, would not rather see me commit ten blunders than try to hide one. pending the production of further evidence, i hold that the existence of people who believe in the infallibility of men of science is as purely mythical as that of the evil counsellor who advised the withholding of the truth lest it should conflict with that belief. i venture to think, then, that the duke of argyll might have spared his "little lesson" as well as his "great lesson" with advantage. the paternal authority who whips the child for sins he has not committed does not strengthen his moral influence--rather excites contempt and repugnance. and if, as would seem from this and former monitory allocutions which have been addressed to us, the duke aspires to the position of censor, or spiritual director, in relation to the men who are doing the work of physical science, he really must get up his facts better. there will be an end to all chance of our kissing the rod if his grace goes wrong a third time. he must not say again that "no serious reply has been attempted" to a view which was discussed and repudiated, two years before, by one of the highest extant authorities on the subject; he must not say that darwin accepted that which it can be proved he did not accept; he must not say that a doctrine has dropped into the abyss when it is quite obviously alive and kicking at the surface; he must not assimilate a man like professor dana to the components of an "ignorant mob"; he must not say that things are beginning to be known which are not known at all; he must not say that "slow and sulky acquiescence" has been given to that which cannot yet boast of general acquiescence of any kind; he must not suggest that a view which has been publicly advocated by the director of the geological survey and no less publicly discussed by many other authoritative writers has been intentionally and systematically ignored; he must not ascribe ill motives for a course of action which is the only proper one; and finally, if any one but myself were interested, i should say that he had better not waste his time in raking up the errors of those whose lives have been occupied, not in talking about science, but in toiling, sometimes with success and sometimes with failure, to get some real work done. the most considerable difference i note among men is not in their readiness to fall into error, but in their readiness to acknowledge these inevitable lapses. the duke of argyll has now a splendid opportunity for proving to the world in which of these categories it is hereafter to rank him. * * * * * dear professor huxley,--a short time before mr. darwin's death, i had a conversation with, him concerning the observations which had been made by mr. murray upon coral-reefs, and the speculations which had been founded upon those observations. i found that mr. darwin had very carefully considered the whole subject, and that while, on the one hand, he did not regard the actual facts recorded by mr. murray as absolutely inconsistent with his own theory of subsidence, on the other hand, he did not believe that they necessitated or supported the hypothesis advanced by mr. murray. mr. darwin's attitude, as i understood it, towards mr. murray's objections to the theory of subsidence was exactly similar to that maintained by him with respect to professor semper's criticism, which was of a very similar character; and his position with regard to the whole question was almost identical with that subsequently so clearly defined by professor dana in his well-known articles published in the "american journal of science" for . it is difficult to imagine how any one, acquainted with the scientific literature of the last seven years, could possibly suggest that mr. murray's memoir published in had failed to secure a due amount of attention. mr. murray, by his position in the "challenger" office, occupied an exceptionally favourable position for making his views widely known; and he had, moreover, the singular good fortune to secure from the first the advocacy of so able and brilliant a writer as professor archibald geikie, who in a special discourse and in several treatises on geology and physical geology very strongly supported the new theory. it would be an endless task to attempt to give references to the various scientific journals which have discussed the subject, but i may add that every treatise on geology which has been published, since mr. murray's views were made known, has dealt with his observations at considerable length. this is true of professor a.h. green's "physical geology," published in ; of professor prestwich's "geology, chemical and physical"; and of professor james geikie's "outlines of geology," published in . similar prominence is given to the subject in de lapparent's "traité de géologie," published in , and in credner's "elemente der geologie," which has appeared during the present year. if this be a "conspiracy of silence," where, alas! can the geological speculator seek for fame?--yours very truly, john w. judd. _october_ , . footnotes: [ ] _the advance of science_. three sermons preached in manchester cathedral on sunday, september , , during the meeting of the british association for the advancement of science, by the bishop of carlisle, the bishop of bedford, and the bishop of manchester. [ ] reprinted in vol. iv. of this collection. [ ] _american journal of science_, , p. . [ ] professor geikie, however, though a strong, is a fair and candid advocate. he says of darwin's theory, "that it may be possibly true, in some instances, may be readily granted." for professor geikie, then, it is not yet over-thrown--still less a dream. [ ] i find, moreover, that i specially warned my readers against hasty judgment. after stating the facts of observation, i add, "i have, hitherto, said nothing about their meaning, as, in an inquiry so difficult and fraught with interest as this, it seems to me to be in the highest degree important to keep the questions of fact and the questions of interpretation well apart" (p. ). v: the value of witness to the miraculous [ ] charles, or, more properly, karl, king of the franks, consecrated roman emperor in st. peter's on christmas day, a.d. , and known to posterity as the great (chiefly by his agglutinative gallicised denomination, of charlemagne), was a man great in all ways, physically and mentally. within a couple of centuries after his death charlemagne became the centre of innumerable legends; and the myth-making process does not seem to have been sensibly interfered with by the existence of sober and truthful histories of the emperor and of the times which immediately preceded and followed his reign by a contemporary writer who occupied a high and confidential position in his court, and in that of his successor. this was one eginhard, or einhard, who appears to have been born about a.d. , and spent his youth at the court, being educated along with charles's sons. there is excellent contemporary testimony not only to eginhard's existence, but to his abilities, and to the place which he occupied in the circle of the intimate friends of the great ruler whose life he subsequently wrote. in fact, there is as good evidence of eginhard's existence, of his official position, and of his being the author of the chief works attributed to him, as can reasonably be expected in the case of a man who lived more than a thousand years ago, and was neither a great king nor a great warrior. the works are-- . "the life of the emperor karl." . "the annals of the franks." . "letters." . "the history of the translation of the blessed martyrs of christ, ss. marcellinus and petrus." it is to the last, as one of the most singular and interesting records of the period during which the roman world passed into that of the middle ages, that i wish to direct attention.[ ] it was written in the ninth century, somewhere, apparently, about the year , when eginhard, ailing in health and weary of political life, had withdrawn to the monastery of seligenstadt, of which he was the founder. a manuscript copy of the work, made in the tenth century, and once the property of the monastery of st. bavon on the scheldt, of which eginhard was abbot, is still extant, and there is no reason to believe that, in this copy, the original has been in any way interpolated or otherwise tampered with. the main features of the strange story contained in the "historia translationis" are set forth in the following pages, in which, in regard to all matters of importance, i shall adhere as closely as possible to eginhard's own words. while i was still at court, busied with secular affairs, i often thought of the leisure which i hoped one day to enjoy in a solitary place, far away from the crowd, with which the liberality of prince louis, whom i then served, had provided me. this place is situated in that part of germany which lies between the neckar and the maine,[ ] and is nowadays called the odenwald by those who live in and about it. and here having built, according to my capacity and resources, not only houses and permanent dwellings, but also a basilica fitted for the performance of divine service and of no mean style of construction, i began to think to what saint or martyr i could best dedicate it. a good deal of time had passed while my thoughts fluctuated about this matter, when it happened that a certain deacon of the roman church, named deusdona, arrived at the court for the purpose of seeking the favour of the king in some affairs in which he was interested. he remained some time; and then, having transacted his business, he was about to return to rome, when one day, moved by courtesy to a stranger, we invited him to a modest refection; and while talking of many things at table, mention was made of the translation of the body of the blessed sebastian,[ ] and of the neglected tombs of the martyrs, of which there is such a prodigious number at rome; and the conversation having turned towards the dedication of our new basilica, i began to inquire how it might be possible for me to obtain some of the true relics of the saints which rest at rome. he at first hesitated, and declared that he did not know how that could be done. but observing that i was both anxious and curious about the subject, he promised to give me an answer some other day. when i returned to the question some time afterwards, he immediately drew from his bosom a paper, which he begged me to read when i was alone, and to tell him what i was disposed to think of that which was therein stated. i took the paper and, as he desired, read it alone and in secret. (cap. i. , .) i shall have occasion to return to deacon deusdona's conditions, and to what happened after eginhard's acceptance of them. suffice it, for the present, to say that eginhard's notary, ratleicus (ratleig), was despatched to rome and succeeded in securing two bodies, supposed to be those of the holy martyrs marcellinus and petrus; and when he had got as far on his homeward journey as the burgundian town of solothurn, or soleure,[ ] notary ratleig despatched to his master, at st. bavon, a letter announcing the success of his mission. as soon as by reading it i was assured of the arrival of the saints, i despatched a confidential messenger to maestricht to gather together priests, other clerics, and also laymen, to go out to meet the coming saints as speedily as possible. and he and his companions, having lost no time, after a few days met those who had charge of the saints at solothurn. joined with them, and with a vast crowd of people who gathered from all parts, singing hymns, and amidst great and universal rejoicings, they travelled quickly to the city of argentoratum, which is now called strasburg. thence embarking on the rhine, they came to the place called portus,[ ] and landing on the east bank of the river, at the fifth station thence they arrived at michilinstadt,[ ] accompanied by an immense multitude, praising god. this place is in that forest of germany which in modern times is called the odenwald, and about six leagues from the maine. and here, having found a basilica recently built by me, but not yet consecrated, they carried the sacred remains into it and deposited them therein, as if it were to be their final resting-place. as soon as all this was reported to me i travelled thither as quickly as i could. (cap. ii. .) three days after eginhard's arrival began the series of wonderful events which he narrates, and for which we have his personal guarantee. the first thing that he notices is the dream of a servant of ratleig, the notary, who, being set to watch the holy relics in the church after vespers, went to sleep and, during his slumbers, had a vision of two pigeons, one white and one gray and white, which came and sat upon the bier over the relics; while, at the same time, a voice ordered the man to tell his master that the holy martyrs had chosen another resting-place and desired to be transported thither without delay. unfortunately, the saints seem to have forgotten to mention where they wished to go; and, with the most anxious desire to gratify their smallest wishes, eginhard was naturally greatly perplexed what to do. while in this state of mind, he was one day contemplating his "great and wonderful treasure, more precious than all the gold in the world," when it struck him that the chest in which the relics were contained was quite unworthy of its contents; and, after vespers, he gave orders to one of the sacristans to take the measure of the chest in order that a more fitting shrine might be constructed. the man, having lighted a wax candle and raised the pall which covered the relics, in order to carry out his master's orders, was astonished and terrified to observe that the chest was covered with a blood-like exudation (_loculum mirum in modum humore sanguineo undique distillantem_), and at once sent a message to eginhard. then i and those priests who accompanied me beheld this stupendous miracle, worthy of all admiration. for just as when it is going to rain, pillars and slabs and marble images exude moisture, and, as it were, sweat, so the chest which contained the most sacred relics was found moist with the blood exuding on all sides. (cap. ii. .) three days' fast was ordained in order that the meaning of the portent might be ascertained. all that happened, however, was that, at the end of that time, the "blood," which had been exuding in drops all the while, dried up. eginhard is careful to say that the liquid "had a saline taste, something like that of tears, and was thin as water though of the colour of true blood," and he clearly thinks this satisfactory evidence that it was blood. the same night, another servant had a vision, in which still more imperative orders for the removal of the relics were given; and, from that time forth, "not a single night passed without one, two, or even three of our companions receiving revelations in dreams that the bodies of the saints were to be transferred from that place to another." at last a priest, hildfrid, saw, in a dream, a venerable white-haired man in a priest's vestments, who bitterly reproached eginhard for not obeying the repeated orders of the saints; and, upon this, the journey was commenced. why eginhard delayed obedience to these repeated visions so long does not appear. he does not say so, in so many words, but the general tenor of the narrative leads one to suppose that mulinheim (afterwards seligenstadt) is the "solitary place" in which he had built the church which awaited dedication. in that case, all the people about him would know that he desired that the saints should go there. if a glimmering of secular sense led him to be a little suspicious about the real cause of the unanimity of the visionary beings who manifested themselves to his _entourage_, in favour of moving on, he does not say so. at the end of the first day's journey, the precious relics were deposited in the church of st. martin, in the village of ostheim. hither, a paralytic nun (_sanctimonialis quædam paralytica_) of the name of ruodlang was brought, in a car, by her friends and relatives from a monastery a league off. she spent the night watching and praying by the bier of the saints; "and health returning to all her members, on the morrow she went back to her place whence she came, on her feet, nobody supporting her, or in any way giving her assistance." (cap. ii. .) on the second day, the relics were carried to upper mulinheim; and, finally, in accordance with the orders of the martyrs, deposited in the church of that place, which was therefore renamed seligenstadt. here, daniel, a beggar boy of fifteen, and so bent that "he could not look at the sky without lying on his back," collapsed and fell down during the celebration of the mass. "thus he lay a long time, as if asleep, and all his limbs straightening and his flesh strengthening (_recepta firmitate nervorum_), he arose before our eyes, quite well." (cap. ii. .) some time afterwards an old man entered the church on his hands and knees, being unable to use his limbs properly:-- he, in presence of all of us, by the power of god and the merits of the blessed martyrs, in the same hour in which he entered was so perfectly cured that he walked without so much as a stick. and he said that, though he had been deaf for five years, his deafness had ceased along with the palsy. (cap. iii. .) eginhard was now obliged to return to the court at aix-la-chapelle, where his duties kept him through the winter; and he is careful to point out that the later miracles which he proceeds to speak of are known to him only at second hand. but, as he naturally observes, having seen such wonderful events with his own eyes, why should he doubt similar narrations when they are received from trustworthy sources? wonderful stories these are indeed, but as they are, for the most part, of the same general character as those already recounted, they may be passed over. there is, however, an account of a possessed maiden which is worth attention. this is set forth in a memoir, the principal contents of which are the speeches of a demon who declared himself to possess the singular appellation of "wiggo," and revealed himself in the presence of many witnesses, before the altar, close to the relics of the blessed martyrs. it is noteworthy that the revelations appear to have been made in the shape of replies to the questions of the exorcising priest; and there is no means of judging how far the answers are, really, only the questions to which the patient replied yes or no. the possessed girl, about sixteen years of age, was brought by her parents to the basilica of the martyrs. when she approached the tomb containing the sacred bodies, the priest, according to custom, read the formula of exorcism over her head. when he began to ask how and when the demon had entered her, she answered, not in the tongue of the barbarians, which alone the girl knew, but in the roman tongue. and when the priest was astonished and asked how she came to know latin, when her parents, who stood by, were wholly ignorant of it, "thou hast never seen my parents," was the reply. to this the priest, "whence art thou, then, if these are not thy parents?" and the demon, by the mouth of the girl, "i am a follower and disciple of satan, and for a long time i was gatekeeper (janitor) in hell; but for some years, along with eleven companions, i have ravaged the kingdom of the franks." (cap. v. .) he then goes on to tell how they blasted the crops and scattered pestilence among beasts and men, because of the prevalent wickedness of the people.[ ] the enumeration of all these iniquities, in oratorical style, takes up a whole octavo page; and at the end it is stated, "all these things the demon spoke in latin by the mouth of the girl." and when the priest imperatively ordered him to come out, "i shall go," said he, "not in obedience to you, but on account of the power of the saints, who do not allow me to remain any longer." and having said this, he threw the girl down on the floor and there compelled her to lie prostrate for a time, as though she slumbered. after a little while, however, he going away, the girl, by the power of christ and the merits of the blessed martyrs, as it were awaking from sleep, rose up quite well, to the astonishment of all present; nor after the demon had gone out was she able to speak latin: so that it was plain enough that it was not she who had spoken in that tongue, but the demon by her mouth. (cap. v. .) if the "historia translationis" contained nothing more than has been laid before the reader, up to this time, disbelief in the miracles of which it gives so precise and full a record might well be regarded as hyper-scepticism. it might fairly be said, here you have a man, whose high character, acute intelligence, and large instruction are certified by eminent contemporaries; a man who stood high in the confidence of one of the greatest rulers of any age, and whose other works prove him to be an accurate and judicious narrator of ordinary events. this man tells you, in language which bears the stamp of sincerity, of things which happened within his own knowledge, or within that of persons in whose veracity he has entire confidence, while he appeals to his sovereign and the court as witnesses of others; what possible ground can there be for disbelieving him? well, it is hard upon eginhard to say so, but it is exactly the honesty and sincerity of the man which are his undoing as a witness to the miraculous. he himself makes it quite obvious that when his profound piety comes on the stage, his good sense and even his perception of right and wrong, make their exit. let us go back to the point at which we left him, secretly perusing the letter of deacon deusdona. as he tells us, its contents were that he [the deacon] had many relics of saints at home, and that he would give them to me if i would furnish him with the means of returning to rome; he had observed that i had two mules, and if i would let him have one of them and would despatch with him a confidential servant to take charge of the relics, he would at once send them to me. this plausibly expressed proposition pleased me, and i made up my mind to test the value of the somewhat ambiguous promise at once;[ ] so giving him the mule and money for his journey i ordered my notary ratleig (who already desired to go to rome to offer his devotions there) to go with him. therefore, having left aix-la-chapelle (where the emperor and his court resided at the time) they came to soissons. here they spoke with hildoin, abbot of the monastery of st. medardus, because the said deacon had assured him that he had the means of placing in his possession the body of the blessed tiburtius the martyr. attracted by which promises he (hildoin) sent with them a certain priest, hunus by name, a sharp man (_hominem callidum_), whom he ordered to receive and bring back the body of the martyr in question. and so, resuming their journey, they proceeded to rome as fast as they could. (cap. i. .) unfortunately, a servant of the notary, one reginbald, fell ill of a tertian fever, and impeded the progress of the party. however, this piece of adversity had its sweet uses; for three days before they reached rome, reginbald had a vision. somebody habited as a deacon appeared to him and asked why his master was in such a hurry to get to rome; and when reginbald explained their business, this visionary deacon, who seems to have taken the measure of his brother in the flesh with some accuracy, told him not by any means to expect that deusdona would fulfil his promises. moreover, taking the servant by the hand, he led him to the top of a high mountain and, showing him rome (where the man had never been), pointed out a church, adding "tell ratleig the thing he wants is hidden there; let him get it as quickly as he can and go back to his master." by way of a sign that the order was authoritative, the servant was promised that, from that time forth, his fever should disappear. and as the fever did vanish to return no more, the faith of eginhard's people in deacon deusdona naturally vanished with it (_et fidem diaconi promissis non haberent_). nevertheless, they put up at the deacon's house near st. peter ad vincula. but time went on and no relics made their appearance, while the notary and the priest were put off with all sorts of excuses--the brother to whom the relics had been confided was gone to beneventum and not expected back for some time, and so on--until ratleig and hunus began to despair, and were minded to return, _infecto negotio_. but my notary, calling to mind his servant's dream, proposed to his companion that they should go to the cemetery which their host had talked about without him. so, having found and hired a guide, they went in the first place to the basilica of the blessed tiburtius in the via labicana, about three thousand paces fron the town, and cautiously and carefully inspected the tomb of that martyr, in order to discover whether it could be opened without any one being the wiser. then they descended into the adjoining crypt, in which the bodies of the blessed martyrs of christ, marcellinus and petrus, were buried; and, having made out the nature of their tomb, they went away thinking their host would not know what they had been about. but things fell out differently from what they had imagined. (cap. i. .) in fact, deacon deusdona, who doubtless kept an eye on his guests, knew all about their manoeuvres and made haste to offer his services, in order that, "with the help of god" (_si deus votis eorum favere dignaretur_), they should all work together. the deacon was evidently alarmed lest they should succeed without _his_ help. so, by way of preparation for the contemplated _vol avec effraction_ they fasted three days; and then, at night, without being seen, they betook themselves to the basilica of st. tiburtius, and tried to break open the altar erected over his remains. but the marble proving too solid, they descended to the crypt, and, "having evoked our lord jesus christ and adored the holy martyrs," they proceeded to prise off the stone which covered the tomb, and thereby exposed the body of the most sacred martyr, marcellinus, "whose head rested on a marble tablet on which his name was inscribed." the body was taken up with the greatest veneration, wrapped in a rich covering, and given over to the keeping of the deacon and his brother, lunison, while the stone was replaced with such care that no sign of the theft remained. as sacrilegious proceedings of this kind were punishable with death by the roman law, it seems not unnatural that deacon deusdona should have become uneasy, and have urged ratleig to be satisfied with what he had got and be off with his spoils. but the notary having thus cleverly captured the blessed marcellinus, thought it a pity he should be parted from the blessed petrus, side by side with whom he had rested, for five hundred years and more, in the same sepulchre (as eginhard pathetically observes); and the pious man could neither eat, drink, nor sleep, until he had compassed his desire to re-unite the saintly colleagues. this time, apparently in consequence of deusdona's opposition to any further resurrectionist doings, he took counsel with a greek monk, one basil, and, accompanied by hunus, but saying nothing to deusdona, they committed another sacrilegious burglary, securing this time, not only the body of the blessed petrus, but a quantity of dust, which they agreed the priest should take, and tell his employer that it was the remains of the blessed tiburtius. how deusdona was "squared," and what he got for his not very valuable complicity in these transactions, does not appear. but at last the relics were sent off in charge of lunison, the brother of deusdona, and the priest hunus, as far as pavia, while ratleig stopped behind for a week to see if the robbery was discovered, and, presumably, to act as a blind, if any hue and cry was raised. but, as everything remained quiet, the notary betook himself to pavia, where he found lunison and hunus awaiting his arrival. the notary's opinion of the character of his worthy colleagues, however, may be gathered from the fact that, having persuaded them to set out in advance along the road which he told them he was about to take, he immediately adopted another route, and, travelling by way of st. maurice and the lake of geneva, eventually reached soleure. eginhard tells all this story with the most naive air of unconsciousness that there is anything remarkable about an abbot, and a high officer of state to boot, being an accessory, both before and after the fact, to a most gross and scandalous act of sacrilegious and burglarious robbery. and an amusing sequel to the story proves that, where relics were concerned, his friend hildoin, another high ecclesiastical dignitary, was even less scrupulous than himself. on going to the palace early one morning, after the saints were safely bestowed at seligenstadt, he found hildoin waiting for an audience in the emperor's antechamber, and began to talk to him about the miracle of the bloody exudation. in the course of conversation, eginhard happened to allude to the remarkable fineness of the garment of the blessed marcellinus. whereupon abbot hildoin observed (to eginhard's stupefaction) that his observation was quite correct. much astonished at this remark from a person who was supposed not to have seen the relics, eginhard asked him how he knew that? upon this, hildoin saw that he had better make a clean breast of it, and he told the following story, which he had received from his priestly agent, hunus. while hunus and lunison were at pavia, waiting for eginhard's notary, hunus (according to his own account) had robbed the robbers. the relics were placed in a church; and a number of laymen and clerics, of whom hunus was one, undertook to keep watch over them. one night, however, all the watchers, save the wide-awake hunus, went to sleep; and then, according to the story which this "sharp" ecclesiastic foisted upon his patron, it was borne in upon his mind that there must be some great reason why all the people, except himself, had suddenly become somnolent; and, determining to avail himself of the opportunity thus offered (_oblata occasione utendum_), he rose and, having lighted a candle, silently approached the chests. then, having burnt through the threads of the seals with the flame of the candle, he quickly opened the chests, which had no locks;[ ] and taking out portions of each of the bodies which were thus exposed, he closed the chests and connected the burnt ends of the threads with the seals again, so that they appeared not to have been touched; and, no one having seen him, he returned to his place. (cap. iii. .) hildoin went on to tell eginhard that hunus at first declared to him that these purloined relics belonged to st. tiburtius; but afterwards confessed, as a great secret, how he had come by them, and he wound up his discourse thus: they have a place of honour beside st. medardus, where they are worshipped with great veneration by all the people; but whether we may keep them or not is for your judgment (cap. iii. .) poor eginhard was thrown into a state of great perturbation of mind by this revelation. an acquaintance of his had recently told him of a rumour that was spread about that hunus had contrived to abstract _all_ the remains of ss. marcellinus and petrus while eginhard's agents were in a drunken sleep; and that, while the real relics were in abbot hildoin's hands at st. medardus, the shrine at seligenstadt contained nothing but a little dust. though greatly annoyed by this "execrable rumour, spread everywhere by the subtlety of the devil," eginhard had doubtless comforted himself by his supposed knowledge of its falsity, and he only now discovered how considerable a foundation there was for the scandal. there was nothing for it but to insist upon the return of the stolen treasures. one would have thought that the holy man, who had admitted himself to be knowingly a receiver of stolen goods, would have made instant restitution and begged only for absolution. but eginhard intimates that he had very great difficulty in getting his brother abbot to see that even restitution was necessary. hildoin's proceedings were not of such a nature as to lead any one to place implicit confidence in anything he might say; still less had his agent, priest hunus, established much claim to confidence; and it is not surprising that eginhard should have lost no time in summoning his notary and lunison to his presence, in order that he might hear what they had to say about the business. they, however, at once protested that priest hunus's story was a parcel of lies, and that after the relics left rome no one had any opportunity of meddling with them. moreover, lunison, throwing himself at eginhard's feet, confessed with many tears what actually took place. it will be remembered that after the body of st. marcellinus was abstracted from its tomb, ratleig deposited it in the house of deusdona, in charge of the latter's brother, lunison. but hunus, being very much disappointed that he could not get hold of the body of st. tiburtius, and afraid to go back to his abbot empty-handed, bribed lunison with four pieces of gold and five of silver to give him access to the chest. this lunison did, and hunus helped himself to as much as would fill a gallon measure (_vas sextarii mensuram_) of the sacred remains. eginhard's indignation at the "rapine" of this "nequissimus nebulo" is exquisitely droll. it would appear that the adage about the receiver being as bad as the thief was not current in the ninth century. let us now briefly sum up the history of the acquisition of the relics. eginhard makes a contract with deusdona for the delivery of certain relics which the latter says he possesses. eginhard makes no inquiry how he came by them; otherwise, the transaction is innocent enough. deusdona turns out to be a swindler, and has no relics. thereupon eginhard's agent, after due fasting and prayer, breaks open the tombs and helps himself. eginhard discovers by the self-betrayal of his brother abbot, hildoin, that portions of his relics have been stolen and conveyed to the latter. with much ado he succeeds in getting them back. hildoin's agent, hunus, in delivering these stolen goods to him, at first declared they were the relics of st. tiburtius, which hildoin desired him to obtain; but afterwards invented a story of their being the product of a theft, which the providential drowsiness of his companions enabled him to perpetrate, from the relics which hildoin well knew were the property of his friend. lunison, on the contrary, swears that all his story is false, and that he himself was bribed by hunus to allow him to steal what he pleased from the property confided to his own and his brother's care by their guest ratleig. and the honest notary himself seems to have no hesitation about lying and stealing to any extent, where the acquisition of relics is the object in view. for a parallel to these transactions one must read a police report of the doings of a "long firm" or of a set of horse-coupers; yet eginhard seems to be aware of nothing, but that he has been rather badly used by his friend hildoin, and the "nequissimus nebulo" hunus. it is not easy for a modern protestant, still less for any one who has the least tincture of scientific culture, whether physical or historical, to picture to himself the state of mind of a man of the ninth century, however cultivated, enlightened, and sincere he may have been. his deepest convictions, his most cherished hopes, were bound up with the belief in the miraculous. life was a constant battle between saints and demons for the possession of the souls of men. the most superstitious among our modern countrymen turn to supernatural agencies only when natural causes seem insufficient; to eginhard and his friends the supernatural was the rule; and the sufficiency of natural causes was allowed only when there was nothing to suggest others. moreover, it must be recollected that the possession of miracle-working relics was greatly coveted, not only on high, but on very low grounds. to a man like eginhard, the mere satisfaction of the religious sentiment was obviously a powerful attraction. but, more than, this, the possession of such a treasure was an immense practical advantage. if the saints were duly flattered and worshipped, there was no telling what benefits might result from their interposition on your behalf. for physical evils, access to the shrine was like the grant of the use of a universal pill and ointment manufactory; and pilgrimages thereto might suffice to cleanse the performers from any amount of sin. a letter to lupus, subsequently abbot of ferrara, written while eginhard was smarting under the grief caused by the loss of his much-loved wife imma, affords a striking insight into the current view of the relation between the glorified saints and their worshippers. the writer shows that he is anything but satisfied with the way in which he has been treated by the blessed martyrs whose remains he has taken such pains to "convey" to seligenstadt, and to honour there as they would never have been honoured in their roman obscurity. it is an aggravation of my grief and a reopening of my wound, that our vows have been of no avail, and that the faith which we placed in the merits and intervention of the martyrs has been utterly disappointed. we may admit, then, without impeachment of eginhard's sincerity, or of his honour under all ordinary circumstances, that when piety, self-interest, the glory of the church in general, and that of the church at seligenstadt in particular, all pulled one way, even the workaday principles of morality were disregarded; and, _a fortiori_, anything like proper investigation of the reality of alleged miracles was thrown to the winds. and if this was the condition of mind of such a man as eginhard, what is it not legitimate to suppose may have been that of deacon deusdona, lunison, hunus, and company, thieves and cheats by their own confession, or of the probably hysterical nun, or of the professional beggars, for whose incapacity to walk and straighten themselves there is no guarantee but their own? who is to make sure that the exorcist of the demon wiggo was not just such another priest as hunus; and is it not at least possible, when eginhard's servants dreamed, night after night, in such a curiously coincident fashion, that a careful inquirer might have found they were very anxious to please their master. quite apart from deliberate and conscious fraud (which is a rarer thing than is often supposed), people, whose mythopoeic faculty is once stirred, are capable of saying the thing that is not, and of acting as they should not, to an extent which is hardly imaginable by persons who are not so easily affected by the contagion of blind faith. there is no falsity so gross that honest men and, still more, virtuous women, anxious to promote a good cause, will not lend themselves to it without any clear consciousness of the moral bearings of what they are doing. the cases of miraculously-effected cures of which eginhard is ocular witness appear to belong to classes of disease in which malingering is possible or hysteria presumable. without modern means of diagnosis, the names given to them are quite worthless. one "miracle," however, in which the patient, a woman, was cured by the mere sight of the church in which the relics of the blessed martyrs lay, is an unmistakable case of dislocation of the lower jaw; and it is obvious that, as not unfrequently happens in such accidents in weakly subjects, the jaws slipped suddenly back into place, perhaps in consequence of a jolt, as the woman rode towards the church. (cap. v. .)[ ] there is also a good deal said about a very questionable blind man--one albricus (alberich?)--who, having been cured, not of his blindness, but of another disease under which he laboured, took up his quarters at seligenstadt, and came out as a prophet, inspired by the archangel gabriel. eginhard intimates that his prophecies were fulfilled; but as he does not state exactly what they were, or how they were accomplished, the statement must be accepted with much caution. it is obvious that he was not the man to hesitate to "ease" a prophecy until it fitted, if the credit of the shrine of his favourite saints could be increased by such a procedure. there is no impeachment of his honour in the supposition. the logic of the matter is quite simple, if somewhat sophistical. the holiness of the church of the martyrs guarantees the reality of the appearance of the archangel gabriel there; and what the archangel says must be true. therefore, if anything seem to be wrong, that must be the mistake of the transmitter; and, in justice to the archangel, it must be suppressed or set right. this sort of "reconciliation" is not unknown in quite modern times, and among people who would be very much shocked to be compared with a "benighted papist" of the ninth century. the readers of this essay are, i imagine, very largely composed of people who would be shocked to be regarded as anything but enlightened protestants. it is not unlikely that those of them who have accompanied me thus far may be disposed to say, "well, this is all very amusing as a story, but what is the practical interest of it? we are not likely to believe in the miracles worked by the spolia of ss. marcellinus and petrus, or by those of any other saints in the roman calendar." the practical interest is this: if you do not believe in these miracles recounted by a witness whose character and competency are firmly established, whose sincerity cannot be doubted, and who appeals to his sovereign and other contemporaries as witnesses of the truth of what he says, in a document of which a ms. copy exists, probably dating within a century of the author's death, why do you profess to believe in stories of a like character, which are found in documents of the dates and of the authorship of which nothing is certainly determined, and no known copies of which come within two or three centuries of the events they record? if it be true that the four gospels and the acts were written by matthew, mark, luke, and john, all that we know of these persons comes to nothing in comparison with our knowledge of eginhard; and not only is there no proof that the traditional authors of these works wrote them, but very strong reasons to the contrary may be alleged. if, therefore, you refuse to believe that "wiggo" was cast out of the possessed girl on eginhard's authority, with what justice can you profess to believe that the legion of devils were cast out of the man among the tombs of the gadarenes? and if, on the other hand, you accept eginhard's evidence, why do you laugh at the supposed efficacy of relics and the saint-worship of the modern romanists? it cannot be pretended, in the face of all evidence, that the jews of the year a.d., or thereabouts, were less imbued with the belief in the supernatural than were the franks of the year a.d. the same influences were at work in each case, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the results were the same. if the evidence of eginhard is insufficient to lead reasonable men to believe in the miracles he relates, _a fortiori_ the evidence afforded by the gospels and the acts must be so.[ ] but it may be said that no serious critic denies the genuineness of the four great pauline epistles--galatians, first and second corinthians, and romans--and that in three out of these four paul lays claim to the power of working miracles.[ ] must we suppose, therefore, that the apostle to the gentiles has stated that which is false? but to how much does this so-called claim amount? it may mean much or little. paul nowhere tells us what he did in this direction; and in his sore need to justify his assumption of apostleship against the sneers of his enemies, it is hardly likely that, if he had any very striking cases to bring forward, he would have neglected evidence so well calculated to put them to shame. and, without the slightest impeachment of paul's veracity, we must further remember that his strongly-marked mental characteristics, displayed in unmistakable fashion by these epistles, are anything but those which would justify us in regarding him as a critical witness respecting matters of fact, or as a trustworthy interpreter of their significance. when a man testifies to a miracle, he not only states a fact, but he adds an interpretation of the fact. we may admit his evidence as to the former, and yet think his opinion as to the latter worthless. if eginhard's calm and objective narrative of the historical events of his time is no guarantee for the soundness of his judgment where the supernatural is concerned, the heated rhetoric of the apostle of the gentiles, his absolute confidence in the "inner light," and the extraordinary conceptions of the nature and requirements of logical proof which he betrays, in page after page of his epistles, afford still less security. there is a comparatively modern man who shared to the full paul's trust in the "inner light," and who, though widely different from the fiery evangelist of tarsus in various obvious particulars, yet, if i am not mistaken, shares his deepest characteristics. i speak of george fox, who separated himself from the current protestantism of england, in the seventeenth century, as paul separated himself from the judaism of the first century, at the bidding of the "inner light"; who went through persecutions as serious as those which paul enumerates; who was beaten, stoned, cast out for dead, imprisoned nine times, sometimes for long periods; who was in perils on land and perils at sea. george fox was an even more widely-travelled missionary; while his success in founding congregations, and his energy in visiting them, not merely in great britain and ireland and the west india islands, but on the continent of europe and that of north america, were no less remarkable. a few years after fox began to preach, there were reckoned to be a thousand friends in prison in the various gaols of england; at his death, less than fifty years after the foundation of the sect, there were , quakers in the united kingdom. the cheerfulness with which these people--women as well as men--underwent martyrdom in this country and in the new england states is one of the most remarkable facts in the history of religion. no one who reads the voluminous autobiography of "honest george" can doubt the man's utter truthfulness; and though, in his multitudinous letters, he but rarely rises for above the incoherent commonplaces of a street preacher, there can be no question of his power as a speaker, nor any doubt as to the dignity and attractiveness of his personality, or of his possession of a large amount of practical good sense and governing faculty. but that george fox had full faith in his own powers as a miracle-worker, the following passage of his autobiography (to which others might he added) demonstrates:-- now after i was set at liberty from nottingham gaol (where i had been kept a prisoner a pretty long time) i travelled as before, in the work of the lord. and coming to mansfield woodhouse, there was a distracted woman, under a doctor's hand, with her hair let loose all about her ears; and he was about to let her blood, she being first bound, and many people being about her, holding her by violence; but he could get no blood from her. and i desired them to unbind her and let her alone; for they could not touch the spirit in her by which she was tormented. so they did unbind her, and i was moved to speak to her, and in the name of the lord to bid her be quiet and still. and she was so. and the lord's power settled her mind and she mended; and afterwards received the truth and continued in it to her death. and the lord's name was honoured; to whom the glory of all his works belongs. many great and wonderful things were wrought by the heavenly power in those days. for the lord made bare his omnipotent arm and manifested his power to the astonishment of many; by the healing virtue whereof many have been delivered from great infirmities, and the devils were made subject through his name: of which particular instances might be given beyond what this unbelieving age is able to receive or bear.[ ] it needs no long study of fox's writings, however, to arrive at the conviction that the distinction between subjective and objective verities had not the same place in his mind as it has in that of an ordinary mortal. when an ordinary person would say "i thought so and so," or "i made up my mind to do so and so," george fox says, "it was opened to me," or "at the command of god i did so and so." "then at the command of god on the ninth day of the seventh month (fox being just nineteen), i left my relations and brake off all familiarity or friendship with young or old." "about the beginning of the year i was moved of the lord to go into darbyshire." fox hears voices and he sees visions, some of which he brings before the reader with apocalyptic power in the simple and strong english, alike untutored and undefiled, of which, like john bunyan, his contemporary, he was a master. "and one morning as i was sitting by the fire, a great cloud came over me and a temptation beset me; and i sate still. and it was said, _all things come by nature_. and the elements and stars came over me; so that i was in a manner quite clouded with it.... and as i sate still under it, and let it alone, a living hope arose in me, and a true voice arose in me which said, _there is a living god who made all things_. and immediately the cloud and the temptation vanished away, and life rose over it all, and my heart was glad and i praised the living god" (p. ). if george fox could speak, as he proves in this and some other passages he could write, his astounding influence on the contemporaries of milton and of cromwell is no mystery. but this modern reproduction of the ancient prophet, with his "thus saith the lord," "this is the work of the lord," steeped in supernaturalism and glorying in blind faith, is the mental antipodes of the philosopher, founded in naturalism and a fanatic for evidence, to whom these affirmations inevitably suggest the previous question: "how do you know that the lord saith it?" "how do you know that the lord doeth it?" and who is compelled to demand that rational ground for belief, without which, to the man of science, assent is merely an immoral pretence. and it is this rational ground of belief which the writers of the gospels, no less than paul, and eginhard, and fox, so little dream of offering that they would regard the demand for it as a kind of blasphemy. footnotes: [ ] my citations are made from teulet's _einhardi omnia quæ extant opera_, paris, - , which contains a biography of the author, a history of the text, with translations into french, and many valuable annotations. [ ] at present included in the duchies of hesse-darmstadt and baden. [ ] this took place in the year a.d. the relics were brought from rome and deposited in the church of st. medardus at soissons. [ ] now included in western switzerland. [ ] probably, according to teulet, the present sandhoferfahrt, a little below the embouchure of the neckar. [ ] the present michilstadt, thirty miles n.e. of heidelberg. [ ] in the middle ages one of the most favourite accusations against witches was that they committed just these enormities. [ ] it is pretty clear that eginhard had his doubts about the deacon, whose pledges he qualifies as _sponsiones incertæ_. but, to be sure, he wrote after events which fully justified scepticism. [ ] the words are _scrinia sine clave_, which seems to mean "having no key." but the circumstances forbid the idea of breaking open. [ ] eginhard speaks with lofty contempt of the "vana ac superstitiosa præsumptio" of the poor woman's companions in trying to alleviate her sufferings with "herbs and frivolous incantations." vain enough, no doubt, but the "mulierculæ" might have returned the epithet "superstitious" with interest. [ ] of course there is nothing new in this argument: but it does not grow weaker by age. and the case of eginhard is far more instructive than that of augustine, because the former has so very frankly, though incidentally, revealed to us not only his own mental and moral habits, but those of the people about him. [ ] see cor. xii. - ; cor. vi. ; rom. xv. . [ ] _a journal or historical account of the life, travels, sufferings, and christian experiences, &c., of george fox_, ed. , pp. , . vi: possibilities and impossibilities [ ] in the course of a discussion which has been going on during the last two years,[ ] it has been maintained by the defenders of ecclesiastical christianity that the demonology of the books of the new testament is an essential and integral part of the revelation of the nature of the spiritual world promulgated by jesus of nazareth. indeed, if the historical accuracy of the gospels and of the acts of the apostles is to be taken for granted, if the teachings of the epistles are divinely inspired, and if the universal belief and practice of the primitive church are the models which all later times must follow, there can be no doubt that those who accept the demonology are in the right. it is as plain as language can make it, that the writers of the gospels believed in the existence of satan and the subordinate ministers of evil as strongly as they believed in that of god and the angels, and that they had an unhesitating faith in possession and in exorcism. no reader of the first three gospels can hesitate to admit that, in the opinion of those persons among whom the traditions out of which they are compiled arose, jesus held, and constantly acted upon, the same theory of the spiritual world. nowhere do we find the slightest hint that he doubted the theory, or questioned the efficacy of the curative operations based upon it. thus, when such a story as that about the gadarene swine is placed before us, the importance of the decision, whether it is to be accepted or rejected, cannot be over-estimated. if the demonological part of it is to be accepted, the authority of jesus is unmistakably pledged to the demonological system current in judæa in the first century. the belief in devils who possess men and can be transferred from men to pigs, becomes as much a part of christian dogma as any article of the creeds. if it is to be rejected, there are two alternative conclusions. supposing the gospels to be historically accurate, it follows that jesus shared in the errors, respecting the nature of the spiritual world, prevalent in the age in which he lived and among the people of his nation. if, on the other hand, the gospel traditions gives us only a popular version of the sayings and doings of jesus, falsely coloured and distorted by the superstitious imaginings of the minds through which it had passed, what guarantee have we that a similar unconscious falsification, in accordance with preconceived ideas, may not have taken place in respect of other reported sayings and doings? what is to prevent a conscientious inquirer from finding himself at last in a purely agnostic position with respect to the teachings of jesus, and consequently with respect to the fundamentals of christianity? in dealing with the question whether the gadarene story was to be believed or not, i confined myself altogether to a discussion of the value of the evidence in its favour. and, as it was easy to prove that this consists of nothing more than three partially discrepant, but often verbally coincident, versions of an original, of the authorship of which nobody knows anything, it appeared to me that it was wholly worthless. even if the event described had been probable, such evidence would have required corroboration; being grossly improbable, and involving acts questionable in their moral and legal aspect, the three accounts sank to the level of mere tales. thus far, i am unable, even after the most careful revision, to find any flaw in my argument; and i incline to think none has been found by my critics--at least, if they have, they have kept the discovery to themselves. in another part of my treatment of the case i have been less fortunate. i was careful to say that, for anything i could "absolutely prove to the contrary," there might be in the universe demonic beings who could enter into and possess men, and even be transferred from them to pigs; and that i, for my part, could not venture to declare _à priori_ that the existence of such entities was "impossible." i was, however, no less careful to remark that i thought the evidence hitherto adduced in favour of the existence of such beings "ridiculously insufficient" to warrant the belief in them. to my surprise, this statement of what, after the closest reflection, i still conceive to be the right conclusion, has been hailed as a satisfactory admission by opponents, and lamented as a perilous concession by sympathisers. indeed, the tone of the comments of some candid friends has been such that i began to suspect that i must be entering upon a process of retrogressive metamorphosis which might eventually give me a place among the respectabilities. the prospect, perhaps, ought to have pleased me; but i confess i felt something of the uneasiness of the tailor who said that, whenever a customer's circumference was either much less, or much more, than at the last measurement, he at once sent in his bill; and i was not consoled until i recollected that, thirteen years ago, in discussing hume's essay on "miracles," i had quoted, with entire assent, the following passage from his writings: "whatever is intelligible and can be distinctly conceived implies no contradiction, and can never be proved false by any demonstrative argument or abstract reasoning _à priori_."[ ] now, it is certain that the existence of demons can be distinctly conceived. in fact, from the earliest times of which we have any record to the present day, the great majority of mankind have had extremely distinct conceptions of them, and their practical life has been more or less shaped by those conceptions. further, the notion of the existence of such beings "implies no contradiction." no doubt, in our experience, intelligence and volition are always found in connection with a certain material organisation, and never disconnected with it; while, by the hypothesis, demons have no such material substratum. but then, as everybody knows, the exact relation between mental and physical phenomena, even in ourselves, is the subject of endless dispute. we may all have our opinions as to whether mental phenomena have a substratum distinct from that which is assumed to underlie material phenomena, or not; though if any one thinks he has demonstrative evidence of either the existence or the non-existence of a "soul," all i can say is, his notion of demonstration differs from mine. but, if it be impossible to demonstrate the non-existence of a "substance" of mental phenomena--that is, of a soul--independent of material "substance"; if the idea of such a "soul" is "intelligible and can be distinctly conceived," then it follows that it is not justifiable to talk of demons as "impossibilities." the idea of their existence implies no more "contradiction" than does the idea of the existence of pathogenic microbes in the air. indeed, the microbes constitute a tolerably exact physical analogue of the "powers of the air" of ancient belief. strictly speaking, i am unaware of any thing that has a right to the title of an "impossibility" except a contradiction in terms. there are impossibilities logical, but none natural. a "round square," a "present past," "two parallel lines that intersect," are impossibilities, because the ideas denoted by the predicates, _round, present, intersect_, are contradictory of the ideas denoted by the subjects, _square, past, parallel_. but walking on water, or turning water into wine, or procreation without male intervention, or raising the dead, are plainly not "impossibilities" in this sense. in the affirmation, that a man walked upon water, the idea of the subject is not contradictory of that in the predicate. naturalists are familiar with insects which walk on water, and imagination has no more difficulty in putting a man in place of the insect than it has in giving a man some of the attributes of a bird and making an angel of him; or in ascribing to him the ascensive tendencies of a balloon, as the "levitationists" do. undoubtedly, there are very strong physical and biological arguments for thinking it extremely improbable that a man could be supported on the surface of the water as the insect is; or that his organisation could be compatible with the possession and use of wings; or that he could rise through the air without mechanical aid. indeed, if we have any reason to believe that our present knowledge of the nature of things exhausts the possibilities of nature, we might properly say that the attributes of men are contradictory of walking on water, or floating in the air, and consequently that these acts are truly "impossible" for him. but it is sufficiently obvious, not only that we are at the beginning of our knowledge of nature, instead of having arrived at the end of it, but that the limitations of our faculties are such that we never can be in a position to set bounds to the possibilities of nature. we have knowledge of what is happening and of what has happened; of what will happen we have and can have no more than expectation, grounded on our more or less correct reading of past experience and prompted by the faith, begotten of that experience, that the order of nature in the future will resemble its order in the past. the same considerations apply to the other examples of supposed miraculous events. the change of water into wine undoubtedly implies a contradiction, and is assuredly "impossible," if we are permitted to assume that the "elementary bodies" of the chemists are, now and for ever, immutable. not only, however, is a negative proposition of this kind incapable of proof, but modern chemistry is inclining towards the contrary doctrine. and if carbon can be got out of hydrogen or oxygen, the conversion of water into wine comes within range of scientific possibility--it becomes a mere question of molecular arrangement. as for virgin procreation, it is not only clearly imaginable, but modern biology recognises it as an everyday occurrence among some groups of animals. so with restoration to life after death. certain animals, long as dry as mummies, and, to all appearance, as dead, when placed in proper conditions resume their vitality. it may be said that these creatures are not dead, but merely in a condition of suspended vitality. that, however, is only begging the question by making the incapacity for restoration to life part of the definition of death. in the absence of obvious lesions of some of the more important organs, it is no easy matter, even for experts, to say that an apparently dead man is incapable of restoration to life; and, in the recorded instances of such restoration, the want of any conclusive evidence that the man was dead is even more remarkable than the insufficiency of the testimony as to his coming to life again. it may be urged, however, that there is, at any rate, one miracle certified by all three of the synoptic gospels which really does "imply a contradiction," and is, therefore, "impossible" in the strictest sense of the word. this is the well-known story of the feeding of several thousand men, to the complete satisfaction of their hunger, by the distribution of a few loaves and fishes among them; the wondrousness of this already somewhat surprising performance being intensified by the assertion that the quantity of the fragments of the meal, left over, amounted to much more than the original store. undoubtedly, if the operation is stated in its most general form; if it is to be supposed that a certain quantity, or magnitude, was divided into many more parts than the whole contained; and that, after the subtraction of several thousands of such parts, the magnitude of the remainder amounted to more than the original magnitude, there does seem to be an _à priori_ difficulty about accepting the proposition, seeing that it appears to be contradictory of the senses which we attach to the words "whole" and "parts" respectively. but this difficulty is removed if we reflect that we are not, in this case, dealing with magnitude in the abstract, or with "whole" and "parts" in their mathematical sense, but with concrete things, many of which are known to possess the power of growing, or increasing in magnitude. they thus furnish us with a conception of growth which we may, in imagination, apply to loaves and fishes; just as we may, in imagination, apply the idea of wings to the idea of a man. it must be admitted that a number of sheep might be fed on a pasture, and yet there might be more grass on the pasture, when the sheep left it, than there was at first. we may generalise this and other such facts into a perfectly definite conception of the increase of food in excess of consumption; which thus becomes a possibility, the limitations of which are to be discovered only by experience. therefore, if it is asserted that cooked food has been made to grow in excess of rapid consumption, that statement cannot logically be rejected as an _à priori_ impossibility, however improbable experience of the capabilities of cooked food may justify us in holding it to be. on the strength of this undeniable improbability, however, we not only have a right to demand, but are morally bound to require, strong evidence in its favour before we even take it into serious consideration. but what is the evidence in this case? it is merely that of those three books,[ ] which also concur in testifying to the truth of the monstrous legend of the herd of swine. in these three books, there are five accounts of a "miraculous feeding," which fall into two groups. three of the stories, obviously derived from some common source, state that five loaves and two fishes sufficed to feed five thousand persons, and that twelve baskets of fragments remained over. in the two others, also obviously derived from a common source, distinct from the preceding, seven loaves and a few small fishes are distributed to four thousand persons, and seven baskets of fragments are left. if we were dealing with secular records, i suppose no candid and competent student of history would entertain much doubt that the originals of the three stories and of the two are themselves merely divergent versions of some primitive story which existed before the three synoptic gospels were compiled out of the body of traditions current about jesus. this view of the case, however, is incompatible with a belief in the historical accuracy of the first and second gospels.[ ] for these agree in making jesus himself speak of both the "four thousand" and the "five thousand" miracle. "when i brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? they say unto him, twelve. and when the seven among the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? and they say unto him, seven." thus we are face to face with a dilemma the way of escape from which is not obvious. either the "four thousand" and the "five thousand" stories are both historically true, and describe two separate events; or the first and second gospels testify to the very words of a conversation between jesus and his disciples which cannot have been uttered. my choice between these alternatives is determined by no _à priori_ speculations about the possibility or impossibility of such events as the feeding of the four or of the five thousand. but i ask myself the question, what evidence ought to be produced before i could feel justified in saying that i believed such an event to have occurred? that question is very easily answered. proof must be given ( ) of the weight of the loaves and fishes at starting; ( ) of the distribution to - , persons, without any additional supply, of this quantity and quality of food; ( ) of the satisfaction of these people's appetites; ( ) of the weight and quality of the fragments gathered up into the baskets. whatever my present notions of probability and improbability may be, satisfactory testimony under these four heads would lead me to believe that they were erroneous; and i should accept the so-called miracle as a new and unexpected example of the possibilities of nature. but when, instead of such evidence, nothing is produced but two sets of discrepant stories, originating nobody knows how or when, among persons who could believe as firmly in devils which enter pigs, i confess that my feeling is one of astonishment that any one should expect a reasonable man to take such testimony seriously. i am anxious to bring about a clear understanding of the difference between "impossibilities" and "improbabilities," because mistakes on this point lay us open to the attacks of ecclesiastical apologists of the type of the late cardinal newman; acute sophists, who think it fitting to employ their intellects, as burglars employ dark lanterns for the discovery of other people's weak places, while they carefully keep the light away from their own position. when it is rightly stated, the agnostic view of "miracles" is, in my judgment, unassailable. we are _not_ justifiable in the _à priori_ assertion that the order of nature, as experience has revealed it to us, cannot change. in arguing about the miraculous, the assumption is illegitimate, because it involves the whole point in dispute. furthermore, it is an assumption which takes us beyond the range of our faculties. obviously, no amount of past experience can warrant us in anything more than a correspondingly strong expectation for the present and future. we find, practically, that expectations, based upon careful observations of events, are, as a rule, trustworthy. we should be foolish indeed not to follow the only guide we have through life. but, for all that, our highest and surest generalisations remain on the level of justifiable expectations; that is, very high probabilities. for my part, i am unable to conceive of an intelligence shaped on the model of that of man, however superior it might be, which could be any better off than our own in this respect; that is, which could possess logically justifiable grounds for certainty about the constancy of the order of things, and therefore be in a position to declare that such and such events are impossible. some of the old mythologies recognised this clearly enough. beyond and above zeus and odin, there lay the unknown and inscrutable fate which, one day or other, would crumple up them and the world they ruled to give place to a new order of things. i sincerely hope that i shall not be accused of pyrrhonism, or of any desire to weaken the foundations of rational certainty. i have merely desired to point out that rational certainty is one thing, and talk about "impossibilities," or "violation of natural laws," another. rational certainty rests upon two grounds--the one that the evidence in favour of a given statement is as good as it can be; the other that such evidence is plainly insufficient. in the former case, the statement is to be taken as true, in the latter as untrue; until something arises to modify the verdict, which, however properly reached, may always be more or less wrong, the best information being never complete, and the best reasoning being liable to fallacy. to quarrel with the uncertainty that besets us in intellectual affairs, would be about as reasonable as to object to live one's life, with due thought for the morrow, because no man can be sure he will be alive an hour hence. such are the conditions imposed upon us by nature, and we have to make the best of them. and i think that the greatest mistake those of us who are interested in the progress of free thought can make is to overlook these limitations, and to deck ourselves with the dogmatic feathers which are the traditional adornment of our opponents. let us be content with rational certainty, leaving irrational certainties to those who like to muddle their minds with them. i cannot see my way to say that demons are impossibilities; but i am not more certain about anything, than i am that the evidence tendered in favour of the demonology, of which the gadarene story is a typical example, is utterly valueless. i cannot see my way to say that it is "impossible" that the hunger of thousands of men should be satisfied out of the food supplied by half-a-dozen loaves and a fish or two; but it seems to me monstrous that i should be asked to believe it on the faith of the five stories which testify to such an occurrence. it is true that the position that miracles are "impossible" cannot be sustained. but i know of nothing which calls upon me to qualify the grave verdict of hume: "there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned goodness, education, and learning as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time attesting facts performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: _all which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men_."[ ] the preceding paper called forth the following criticism signed "agnosco," to which i append my reply:-- while agreeing generally with professor huxley's remarks respecting miracles, in "the agnostic annual for ," it has seemed to me that one of his arguments at least requires qualification. the professor, in maintaining that so-called miraculous events are possible, although the evidence adduced is not sufficient to render them probable, refers to the possibility of changing water into wine by molecular recomposition. he tells us that, "if carbon can be got out of hydrogen or oxygen, the conversion of water into wine comes within range of scientific possibility." but in maintaining that miracles (so-called) have a _prospective_ possibility, professor huxley loses sight--at least, so it appears to me--of the question of their _retrospective_ possibility. for, if it requires a certain degree of knowledge and experience, yet far from having been attained, to perform those acts which have been called miraculous, it is not only improbable, but impossible likewise, that they should have been done by men whose knowledge and experience were considerably less than our own. it has seemed to me, in fact, that this question of the retrospective possibility of miracles is more important to us rationalists, and, for the matter of that, to christians also, than the question of their prospective possibility, with which professor huxley's article mainly deals. perhaps the professor himself could help those of us who think so, by giving us his opinion. i am not sure that i fully appreciate the point raised by "agnosco," nor the distinction between the prospective and the retrospective "possibility" of such a miracle as the conversion of water into wine. if we may contemplate such an event as "possible" in london in the year , it must, in the same sense, have been "possible" in the year (or thereabouts) at cana in galilee. if i should live so long, i shall take great interest in the announcement of the performance of this operation, say, nine years hence; and, if there is no objection raised by chemical experts, i shall accept the fact that the feat has been performed, without hesitation. but i shall have no more ground for believing the cana story than i had before; simply because the evidence in its favour will remain, for me, exactly where it is. possible or impossible, that evidence is worth nothing. to leave the safe ground of "no evidence" for speculations about impossibilities, consequent upon the want of scientific knowledge of the supposed workers of miracles, appears to me to be a mistake; especially in view of the orthodox contention that they possessed supernatural power and supernatural knowledge. t.h. huxley. footnotes: [ ] - . see the next essay (vii) and those which follow it. [ ] _inquiry concerning the human understanding_, p. ; . the passage is cited and discussed in my _hume_, pp. , . [ ] the story in john vi. - is obviously derived from the "five thousand" narrative of the synoptics. [ ] matthew xvi. - ; mark viii. - . [ ] hume, _inquiry_, sec. x., part ii. vii: agnosticism [ ] within the last few months, the public has received much and varied information on the subject of agnostics, their tenets, and even their future. agnosticism exercised the orators of the church congress at manchester.[ ] it has been furnished with a set of "articles" fewer, but not less rigid, and certainly not less consistent than the thirty-nine; its nature has been analysed, and its future severely predicted by the most eloquent of that prophetical school whose samuel is auguste comte. it may still be a question, however, whether the public is as much the wiser as might be expected, considering all the trouble that has been taken to enlighten it. not only are the three accounts of the agnostic position sadly out of harmony with one another, but i propose to show cause for my belief that all three must be seriously questioned by any one who employs the term "agnostic" in the sense in which it was originally used. the learned principal of king's college, who brought the topic of agnosticism before the church congress, took a short and easy way of settling the business:-- but if this be so, for a man to urge, as an escape from this article of belief, that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, is irrelevant. his difference from christians lies not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the authority on which they are stated. he may prefer to call himself an agnostic; but his real name is an older one--he is an infidel; that is to say, an unbeliever. the word infidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance. perhaps it is right that it should. it is, and it ought to be, an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in jesus christ.[ ] so much of dr. wace's address either explicitly or implicitly concerns me, that i take upon myself to deal with it; but, in so doing, it must be understood that i speak for myself alone. i am not aware that there is any sect of agnostics; and if there be, i am not its acknowledged prophet or pope. i desire to leave to the comtists the entire monopoly of the manufacture of imitation ecclesiasticism. let us calmly and dispassionately consider dr. wace's appreciation of agnosticism. the agnostic, according to his view, is a person who says he has no means of attaining a scientific knowledge of the unseen world or of the future; by which somewhat loose phraseology dr. wace presumably means the theological unseen world and future. i cannot think this description happy, either in form or substance, but for the present it may pass. dr. wace continues, that it is not "his difference from christians." are there then any christians who say that they know nothing about the unseen world and the future? i was ignorant of the fact, but i am ready to accept it on the authority of a professional theologian, and i proceed to dr. wace's next proposition. the real state of the case, then, is that the agnostic "does not believe the authority" on which "these things" are stated, which authority is jesus christ. he is simply an old-fashioned "infidel" who is afraid to own to his right name. as "presbyter is priest writ large," so is "agnostic" the mere greek equivalent for the latin "infidel." there is an attractive simplicity about this solution of the problem; and it has that advantage of being somewhat offensive to the persons attacked, which is so dear to the less refined sort of controversialist. the agnostic says, "i cannot find good evidence that so and so is true." "ah," says his adversary, seizing his opportunity, "then you declare that jesus christ was untruthful, for he said so and so;" a very telling method of rousing prejudice. but suppose that the value of the evidence as to what jesus may have said and done, and as to the exact nature and scope of his authority, is just that which the agnostic finds it most difficult to determine. if i venture to doubt that the duke of wellington gave the command "up, guards, and at 'em!" at waterloo, i do not think that even dr. wace would accuse me of disbelieving the duke. yet it would be just as reasonable to do this as to accuse any one of denying what jesus said, before the preliminary question as to what he did say is settled. now, the question as to what jesus really said and did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no other methods than those practised by the historian and the literary critic. it is a problem of immense difficulty, which has occupied some of the best heads in europe for the last century; and it is only of late years that their investigations have begun to converge towards one conclusion.[ ] that kind of faith which dr. wace describes and lauds is of no use here. indeed, he himself takes pains to destroy its evidential value. "what made the mahommedan world? trust and faith in the declarations and assurances of mahommed. and what made the christian world? trust and faith in the declarations and assurances of jesus christ and his apostles" (l.c. p. ). the triumphant tone of this imaginary catechism leads me to suspect that its author has hardly appreciated its full import. presumably, dr. wace regards mahommed as an unbeliever, or, to use the term which he prefers, infidel; and considers that his assurances have given rise to a vast delusion which has led, and is leading, millions of men straight to everlasting punishment. and this being so, the "trust and faith" which have "made the mahommedan world," in just the same sense as they have "made the christian world," must be trust and faith in falsehoods. no man who has studied history, or even attended to the occurrences of everyday life, can doubt the enormous practical value of trust and faith; but as little will he be inclined to deny that this practical value has not the least relation to the reality of the objects of that trust and faith. in examples of patient constancy of faith and of unswerving trust, the "acta martyrum" do not excel the annals of babism.[ ] * * * * * the discussion upon which we have now entered goes so thoroughly to the root of the whole matter; the question of the day is so completely, as the author of "robert elsmere" says, the value of testimony, that i shall offer no apology for following it out somewhat in detail; and, by way of giving substance to the argument, i shall base what i have to say upon a case, the consideration of which lies strictly within the province of natural science, and of that particular part of it known as the physiology and pathology of the nervous system. i find, in the second gospel (chap. v.), a statement, to all appearance intended to have the same evidential value as any other contained in that history. it is the well-known story of the devils who were cast out of a man, and ordered, or permitted, to enter into a herd of swine, to the great loss and damage of the innocent gerasene, or gadarene, pig owners. there can be no doubt that the narrator intends to convey to his readers his own conviction that this casting out and entering in were effected by the agency of jesus of nazareth; that, by speech and action, jesus enforced this conviction; nor does any inkling of the legal and moral difficulties of the case manifest itself. on the other hand, everything that i know of physiological and pathological science leads me to entertain a very strong conviction that the phenomena ascribed to possession are as purely natural as those which constitute small-pox; everything that i know of anthropology leads me to think that the belief in demons and demoniacal possession is a mere survival of a once universal superstition, and that its persistence, at the present time, is pretty much in the inverse ratio of the general instruction, intelligence, and sound judgment of the population among whom it prevails. everything that i know of law and justice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanour of evil example. again, the study of history, and especially of that of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, leaves no shadow of doubt on my mind that the belief in the reality of possession and of witchcraft, justly based, alike by catholics and protestants, upon this and innumerable other passages in both the old and new testaments, gave rise, through the special influence of christian ecclesiastics, to the most horrible persecutions and judicial murders of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children. and when i reflect that the record of a plain and simple declaration upon such an occasion as this, that the belief in witchcraft and possession is wicked nonsense, would have rendered the long agony of mediæval humanity impossible, i am prompted to reject, as dishonouring, the supposition that such declaration was withheld out of condescension to popular error. "come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man" (mark v. ),[ ] are the words attributed to jesus. if i declare, as i have no hesitation in doing, that i utterly disbelieve in the existence of "unclean spirits," and, consequently, in the possibility of their "coming forth" out of a man, i suppose that dr. wace will tell me i am disregarding the testimony "of our lord." for, if these words were really used, the most resourceful of reconcilers can hardly venture to affirm that they are compatible with a disbelief "in these things." as the learned and fair-minded, as well as orthodox, dr. alexander remarks, in an editorial note to the article "demoniacs," in the "biblical cyclopædia" (vol. i. p. , note):-- ... on the lowest grounds on which our lord and his apostles can be placed they must, at least, be regarded as _honest_ men. now, though honest speech does not require that words should be used always and only in their etymological sense, it does require that they should not be used so as to affirm what the speaker knows to be false. whilst, therefore, our lord and his apostles might use the word [greek: daimonizesthai], or the phrase, [greek: daimonion echein] as a popular description of certain diseases, without giving in to the belief which lay at the source of such a mode of expression, they could not speak of demons entering into a man, or being cast out of him, without pledging themselves to the belief of an actual possession of the man by the demons. (campbell, _prel. diss._ vi. , .) if, consequently, they did not hold this belief, they spoke not as honest men. the story which we are considering does not rest on the authority of the second gospel alone. the third confirms the second, especially in the matter of commanding the unclean spirit to come out of the man (luke viii. ); and, although the first gospel either gives a different version of the same story, or tells another of like kind, the essential point remains: "if thou cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine. and he said unto them: go!" (matt. viii. , ). if the concurrent testimony of the three synoptics, then, is really sufficient to do away with all rational doubt as to a matter of fact of the utmost practical and speculative importance--belief or disbelief in which may affect, and has affected, men's lives and their conduct towards other men, in the most serious way--then i am bound to believe that jesus implicitly affirmed himself to possess a "knowledge of the unseen world," which afforded full confirmation of the belief in demons and possession current among his contemporaries. if the story is true, the mediæval theory of the invisible world may be, and probably is, quite correct; and the witch-finders, from sprenger to hopkins and mather, are much-maligned men. on the other hand, humanity, noting the frightful consequences of this belief; common sense, observing the futility of the evidence on which it is based, in all cases that have been properly investigated; science, more and more seeing its way to inclose all the phenomena of so-called "possession" within the domain of pathology, so far as they are not to be relegated to that of the police--all these powerful influences concur in warning us, at our peril, against accepting the belief without the most careful scrutiny of the authority on which it rests. i can discern no escape from this dilemma: either jesus said what he is reported to have said, or he did not. in the former case, it is inevitable that his authority on matters connected with the "unseen world" should be roughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the authority of the synoptic gospels. if their report on a matter of such stupendous and far-reaching practical import as this is untrustworthy, how can we be sure of its trustworthiness in other cases? the favourite "earth," in which the hard-pressed reconciler takes refuge, that the bible does not profess to teach science,[ ] is stopped in this instance. for the question of the existence of demons and of possession by them, though it lies strictly within the province of science, is also of the deepest moral and religious significance. if physical and mental disorders are caused by demons, gregory of tours and his contemporaries rightly considered that relics and exorcists were more useful than doctors; the gravest questions arise as to the legal and moral responsibilities of persons inspired by demoniacal impulses; and our whole conception of the universe and of our relations to it becomes totally different from what it would be on the contrary hypothesis. the theory of life of an average mediæval christian was as different from that of an average nineteenth-century englishman as that of a west african negro is now, in these respects. the modern world is slowly, but surely, shaking off these and other monstrous survivals of savage delusions; and, whatever happens, it will not return to that wallowing in the mire. until the contrary is proved, i venture to doubt whether, at this present moment, any protestant theologian, who has a reputation to lose, will say that he believes the gadarene story. the choice then lies between discrediting those who compiled the gospel biographies and disbelieving the master, whom they, simple souls, thought to honour by preserving such traditions of the exercise of his authority over satan's invisible world. this is the dilemma. no deep scholarship, nothing but a knowledge of the revised version (on which it is to be supposed all that mere scholarship can do has been done), with the application thereto of the commonest canons of common sense, is needful to enable us to make a choice between its alternatives. it is hardly doubtful that the story, as told in the first gospel, is merely a version of that told in the second and third. nevertheless, the discrepancies are serious and irreconcilable; and, on this ground alone, a suspension of judgment, at the least, is called for. but there is a great deal more to be said. from the dawn of scientific biblical criticism until the present day, the evidence against the long-cherished notion that the three synoptic gospels are the works of three independent authors, each prompted by divine inspiration, has steadily accumulated, until, at the present time, there is no visible escape from the conclusion that each of the three is a compilation consisting of a groundwork common to all three--the threefold tradition; and of a superstructure, consisting, firstly, of matter common to it with one of the others, and, secondly, of matter special to each. the use of the terms "groundwork" and "superstructure" by no means implies that the latter must be of later date than the former. on the contrary, some parts of it may be, and probably are, older than some parts of the groundwork.[ ] the story of the gadarene swine belongs to the groundwork; at least, the essential part of it, in which the belief in demoniac possession is expressed, does; and therefore the compilers of the first, second, and third gospels, whoever they were, certainly accepted that belief (which, indeed, was universal among both jews and pagans at that time), and attributed it to jesus. what, then, do we know about the originator, or originators, of this groundwork--of that threefold tradition which all three witnesses (in paley's phrase) agree upon--that we should allow their mere statements to outweigh the counter arguments of humanity, of common sense, of exact science, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be able to render to their master? absolutely nothing.[ ] there is no proof, nothing more than a fair presumption, that any one of the gospels existed, in the state in which we find it in the authorised version of the bible, before the second century, or, in other words, sixty or seventy years after the events recorded. and, between that time and the date of the oldest extant manuscripts of the gospels, there is no telling what additions and alterations and interpolations may have been made. it may be said that this is all mere speculation, but it is a good deal more. as competent scholars and honest men, our revisers have felt compelled to point out that such things have happened even since the date of the oldest known manuscripts. the oldest two copies of the second gospel end with the th verse of the th chapter; the remaining twelve verses are spurious, and it is noteworthy that the maker of the addition has not hesitation to introduce a speech in which jesus promises his disciples that "in my name shall they cast out devils." the other passage "rejected to the margin" is still more instructive. it is that touching apologue, with its profound ethical sense, of the woman taken in adultery--which, if internal evidence were an infallible guide, might well be affirmed to be a typical example of the teachings of jesus. yet, say the revisers, pitilessly, "most of the ancient authorities emit john vii. -viii. ." now let any reasonable man ask himself this question. if, after an approximate settlement of the canon of the new testament, and even later than the fourth and fifth centuries, literary fabricators had the skill and the audacity to make such additions and interpolations as these, what may they have done when no one had thought of a canon; when oral tradition, still unfixed, was regarded as more valuable than such written records as may have existed in the latter portion of the first century? or, to take the other alternative, if those who gradually settled the canon did not know of the existence of the oldest codices which have come down to us; or if, knowing them, they rejected their authority, what is to be thought of their competency as critics of the text? people who object to free criticism of the christian scriptures forget that they are what they are in virtue of very free criticism; unless the advocates of inspiration are prepared to affirm that the majority of influential ecclesiastics during several centuries were safeguarded against error. for, even granting that some books of the period were inspired, they were certainly few amongst many; and those who selected the canonical books, unless they themselves were also inspired, must be regarded in the light of mere critics, and, from the evidence they have left of their intellectual habits, very uncritical critics. when one thinks that such delicate questions as those involved fell into the hands of men like papias (who believed in the famous millenarian grape story); of irenæus with his "reasons" for the existence of only four gospels; and of such calm and dispassionate judges as tertullian, with his "credo quia impossibile": the marvel is that the selection which constitutes our new testament is as free as it is from obviously objectionable matter. the apocryphal gospels certainly deserve to be apocryphal; but one may suspect that a little more critical discrimination would have enlarged the apocrypha not inconsiderably. at this point a very obvious objection arises and deserves full and candid consideration. it may be said that critical scepticism carried to the length suggested is historical pyrrhonism; that if we are altogether to discredit an ancient or a modern historian, because he has assumed fabulous matter to be true, it will be as well to give up paying any attention to history. it may be said, and with great justice, that eginhard's "life of charlemagne" is none the less trustworthy because of the astounding revelation of credulity, of lack of judgment, and even of respect for the eighth commandment, which he has unconsciously made in the "history of the translation of the blessed martyrs marcellinus and paul." or, to go no further back than the last number of the _nineteenth century_, surely that excellent lady, miss strickland, is not to be refused all credence, because of the myth about the second james's remains which she seems to have unconsciously invented. of course this is perfectly true. i am afraid there is no man alive whose witness could be accepted, if the condition precedent were proof that he had never invented and promulgated a myth. in the minds of all of us there are little places here and there, like the indistinguishable spots on a rock which give foothold to moss or stonecrop; on which, if the germ of a myth fall, it is certain to grow, without in the least degree affecting our accuracy or truthfulness elsewhere. sir walter scott knew that he could not repeat a story without, as he said, "giving it a new hat and stick." most of us differ from sir walter only in not knowing about this tendency of the mythopoeic faculty to break out unnoticed. but it is also perfectly true that the mythopoeic faculty is not equally active in all minds, nor in all regions and under all conditions of the same mind. david hume was certainly not so liable to temptation as the venerable bede, or even as some recent historians who could be mentioned; and the most imaginative of debtors, if he owes five pounds, never makes an obligation to pay a hundred out of it. the rule of common sense is _primâ facie_ to trust a witness in all matters, in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor that love of the marvellous, which is inherent to a greater or less degree in all mankind, are strongly concerned; and, when they are involved, to require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified. now, in the gadarene affair, i do not think i am unreasonably sceptical, if i say that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man to a pig, does thus contravene probability. let me be perfectly candid. i admit i have no _à priori_ objection to offer. there are physical things, such as _tæniæ_ and _trichinæ_, which can be transferred from men to pigs, and _vice versâ_, and which do undoubtedly produce most diabolical and deadly effects on both. for anything i can absolutely prove to the contrary, there may be spiritual things capable of the same transmigration, with like effects. moreover i am bound to add that perfectly truthful persons, for whom i have the greatest respect, believe in stories about spirits of the present day, quite as improbable as that we are considering. so i declare, as plainly as i can, that i am unable to show cause why these transferable devils should not exist; nor can i deny that, not merely the whole roman church, but many wacean "infidels" of no mean repute, do honestly and firmly believe that the activity of such like demonic beings is in full swing in this year of grace . nevertheless, as good bishop butler says, "probability is the guide of life;" and it seems to me that this is just one of the cases in which the canon of credibility and testimony, which i have ventured to lay down, has full force. so that, with the most entire respect for many (by no means for all) of our witnesses for the truth of demonology, ancient and modern, i conceive their evidence on this particular matter to be ridiculously insufficient to warrant their conclusion.[ ] after what has been said i do not think that any sensible man, unless he happen to be angry, will accuse me of "contradicting the lord and his apostles" if i reiterate my total disbelief in the whole gadarene story. but, if that story is discredited, all the other stories of demoniac possession fall under suspicion. and if the belief in demons and demoniac possession, which forms the sombre background of the whole picture of primitive christianity, presented to us in the new testament, is shaken, what is to be said, in any case, of the uncorroborated testimony of the gospels with respect to "the unseen world"? i am not aware that i have been influenced by any more bias in regard to the gadarene story than i have been in dealing with other cases of like kind the investigation of which has interested me. i was brought up in the strictest school of evangelical orthodoxy; and when i was old enough to think for myself, i started upon my journey of inquiry with little doubt about the general truth of what i had been taught; and with that feeling of the unpleasantness of being called an "infidel" which we are told, is so right and proper. near my journey's end, i find myself in a condition of something more than mere doubt about these matters. in the course of other inquiries, i have had to do with fossil remains which looked quite plain at a distance, and became more and more indistinct as i tried to define their outline by close inspection. there was something there--something which, if i could win assurance about it, might mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as long as i might, certainty eluded my grasp. so had it been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of jesus as it lies in the primary strata of christian literature. is he the kindly, peaceful christ depicted in the catacombs? or is he the stern judge who frowns upon the altar of ss. cosmas and damianus? or can he be rightly represented by the bleeding ascetic, broken down by physical pain, of too many mediæval pictures? are we to accept the jesus of the second, or the jesus of the fourth gospel, as the true jesus? what did he really say and do; and how much that is attributed to him, in speech and action, is the embroidery of the various parties into which his followers tended to split themselves within twenty years of his death, when even the threefold tradition was only nascent? if any one will answer these questions for me with something more to the point than feeble talk about the "cowardice of agnosticism," i shall be deeply his debtor. unless and until they are satisfactorily answered, i say of agnosticism in this matter, "_j'y suis, et j'y reste_." but, as we have seen, it is asserted that i have no business to call myself an agnostic; that, if i am not a christian i am an infidel; and that i ought to call myself by that name of "unpleasant significance." well, i do not care much what i am called by other people, and if i had at my side all those who, since the christian era, have been called infidels by other folks, i could not desire better company. if these are my ancestors, i prefer, with the old frank, to be with them wherever they are. but there are several points in dr. wace's contention which must be elucidated before i can even think of undertaking to carry out his wishes. i must, for instance, know what a christian is. now what is a christian? by whose authority is the signification of that term defined? is there any doubt that the immediate followers of jesus, the "sect of the nazarenes," were strictly orthodox jews differing from other jews not more than the sadducees, the pharisees, and the essenes differed from one another; in fact, only in the belief that the messiah, for whom the rest of their nation waited, had come? was not their chief, "james, the brother of the lord," reverenced alike by sadducee, pharisee, and nazarene? at the famous conference which, according to the acts, took place at jerusalem, does not james declare that "myriads" of jews, who, by that time, had become nazarenes, were "all zealous for the law"? was not the name of "christian" first used to denote the converts to the doctrine promulgated by paul and barnabas at antioch? does the subsequent history of christianity leave any doubt that, from this time forth, the "little rift within the lute" caused by the new teaching, developed, if not inaugurated, at antioch, grew wider and wider, until the two types of doctrines irreconcilably diverged? did not the primitive nazarenism, or ebionism, develop into the nazarenism, and ebionism, and elkasaitism of later ages, and finally die out in obscurity and condemnation, as damnable heresy; while the younger doctrine throve and pushed out its shoots into that endless variety of sects, of which the three strongest survivors are the roman and greek churches and modern protestantism? singular state of things! if i were to profess the doctrine which was held by "james, the brother of the lord," and by every one of the "myriads" of his followers and co-religionists in jerusalem up to twenty or thirty years after the crucifixion (and one knows not how much later at pella), i should be condemned, with unanimity, as an ebionising heretic by the roman, greek, and protestant churches! and, probably, this hearty and unanimous condemnation of the creed, held by those who were in the closest personal relation with their lord, is almost the only point upon which they would be cordially of one mind. on the other hand, though i hardly dare imagine such a thing, i very much fear that the "pillars" of the primitive hierosolymitan church would have considered dr. wace an infidel. no one can read the famous second chapter of galatians and the book of revelation without seeing how narrow was even paul's escape from a similar fate. and, if ecclesiastical history is to be trusted, the thirty-nine articles, be they right or wrong, diverge from the primitive doctrine of the nazarenes vastly more than even pauline christianity did. but, further than this, i have great difficulty in assuring myself that even james, "the brother of the lord," and his "myriads" of nazarenes, properly represented the doctrines of their master. for it is constantly asserted by our modern "pillars" that one of the chief features of the work of jesus was the instauration of religion by the abolition of what our sticklers for articles and liturgies, with, unconscious humour, call the narrow restrictions of the law. yet, if james knew this, how could the bitter controversy with paul have arisen; and why did not one or the other side quote any of the various sayings of jesus, recorded in the gospels, which directly bear on the question--sometimes, apparently, in opposite directions? so, if i am asked to call myself an "infidel," i reply: to what doctrine do you ask me to be faithful? is it that contained in the nicene and the athanasian creeds? my firm belief is that the nazarenes, say of the year , headed by james, would have stopped their ears and thought worthy of stoning the audacious man who propounded it to them. is it contained in the so-called apostle's creed? i am pretty sure that even that would have created a recalcitrant commotion at pella in the year , among the nazarenes of jerusalem, who had fled from the soldiers of titus. and yet, if the unadulterated tradition of the teachings of "the nazarene" were to be found anywhere, it surely should have been amidst those not very aged disciples who may have heard them as they were delivered. therefore, however sorry i may be to be unable to demonstrate that, if necessary, i should not be afraid to call myself an "infidel," i cannot do it. "infidel" is a term of reproach, which christians and mahommedans, in their modesty, agree to apply to those who differ from them. if he had only thought of it, dr. wace might have used the term "miscreant," which, with the same etymological signification, has the advantage of being still more "unpleasant" to the persons to whom it is applied. but why should a man be expected to call himself a "miscreant" or an "infidel"? that st. patrick "had two birthdays because he was a twin" is a reasonable and intelligible utterance beside that of the man who should declare himself to be an infidel on the ground of denying his own belief. it may be logically, if not ethically, defensible that a christian should call a mahommedan an infidel and _vice versâ_; but, on dr. wace's principles, both ought to call themselves infidels, because each applies the term to the other. now i am afraid that all the mahommedan world would agree in reciprocating that appellation to dr. wace himself. i once visited the hazar mosque, the great university of mohammedanism, in cairo, in ignorance of the fact that i was unprovided with proper authority. a swarm of angry undergraduates, as i suppose i ought to call them, came buzzing about me and my guide; and if i had known arabic, i suspect that "dog of an infidel" would have been by no means the most "unpleasant" of the epithets showered upon me, before i could explain and apologise for the mistake. if i had had the pleasure of dr. wace's company on that occasion, the undiscriminative followers of the prophet would, i am afraid, have made no difference between us; not even if they had known that he was the head of an orthodox christian seminary. and i have not the smallest doubt that even one of the learned mollahs, if his grave courtesy would have permitted him to say anything offensive to men of another mode of belief, would have told us that he wondered we did not find it "very unpleasant" to disbelieve in the prophet of islam. from what precedes, i think it becomes sufficiently clear that dr. wace's account of the origin of the name of "agnostic" is quite wrong. indeed, i am bound to add that very slight effort to discover the truth would have convinced him that, as a matter of fact, the term arose otherwise. i am loath to go over an old story once more; but more than one object which i have in view will be served by telling it a little more fully than it has yet been told. looking back nearly fifty years, i see myself as a boy, whose education has been interrupted, and who, intellectually, was left, for some years, altogether to his own devices. at that time, i was a voracious and omnivorous reader; a dreamer and speculator of the first water, well endowed with that splendid courage in attacking any and every subject, which is the blessed compensation of youth and inexperience. among the books and essays, on all sorts of topics from metaphysics to heraldry, which i read at this time, two left indelible impressions on my mind. one was guizot's "history of civilization," the other was sir william hamilton's essay "on the philosophy of the unconditioned," which i came upon, by chance, in an odd volume of the "edinburgh review." the latter was certainly strange reading for a boy, and i could not possibly have understood a great deal of it;[ ] nevertheless, i devoured it with avidity, and it stamped upon my mind the strong conviction that, on even the most solemn and important of questions, men are apt to take cunning phrases for answers; and that the limitation of our faculties, in a great number of cases, renders real answers to such questions, not merely actually impossible, but theoretically inconceivable. philosophy and history having laid hold of me in this eccentric fashion, have never loosened their grip. i have no pretension to be an expert in either subject; but the turn for philosophical and historical reading, which rendered hamilton and guizot attractive to me, has not only filled many lawful leisure hours, and still more sleepless ones, with the repose of changed mental occupation, but has not unfrequently disputed my proper work-time with my liege lady, natural science. in this way i have found it possible to cover a good deal of ground in the territory of philosophy; and all the more easily that i have never cared much about a's or b's opinions, but have rather sought to know what answer he had to give to the questions i had to put to him--that of the limitation of possible knowledge being the chief. the ordinary examiner, with his "state the views of so-and-so," would have floored me at any time. if he had said what do _you_ think about any given problem, i might have got on fairly well. the reader who has had the patience to follow the enforced, but unwilling, egotism of this veritable history (especially if his studies have led him in the same direction), will now see why my mind steadily gravitated towards the conclusions of hume and kant, so well stated by the latter in a sentence, which i have quoted elsewhere. "the greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its delimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of preventing error."[ ] when i reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether i was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a christian or a freethinker; i found that the more i learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, i came to the conclusion that i had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. the one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which i differed from them. they were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"--had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while i was quite sure i had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. and, with hume and kant on my side, i could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. like dante, nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, but, unlike dante, i cannot add, che la diritta via era smarrita. on the contrary, i had, and have, the firmest conviction that i never left the "verace via"--the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. and though i have found leopards and lions in the path; though i have made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, that "with privy paw devours apace and nothing said," as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, i was, and am, minded to go straight on, until i either come out on the other side of the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none attainable by me. this was my situation when i had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the metaphysical society. every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were _-ists_ of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, i, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. so i took thought, and invented what i conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." it came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which i was ignorant; and i took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our society, to show that i, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. to my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the _spectator_ had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled. that is the history of the origin of the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism"; and it will be observed that it does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the reverend principal of king's college, that "the adoption of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion" in relation to the church and christianity.[ ] * * * * * the last objection (i rejoice as much as my readers must do, that it is the last) which i have to take to dr. wace's deliverance before the church congress arises, i am sorry to say, on a question of morality. "it is, and it ought to be," authoritatively declares this official representative of christian ethics, "an unpleasant thing for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in jesus christ" (_l.c._ p. ). whether it is so depends, i imagine, a good deal on whether the man was brought up in a christian household or not. i do not see why it should be "unpleasant" for a mahommedan or buddhist to say so. but that "it ought to be" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely, and after due deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of the most profoundly immoral character. i verily believe that the great good which has been effected in the world by christianity has been largely counteracted by the pestilent doctrine on which all the churches have insisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a moral offence, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving and involving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. if we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source along the course of the history of christian nations, our worst imaginations of hell would pale beside the vision. a thousand times, no! it ought _not_ to be unpleasant to say that which one honestly believes or disbelieves. that it so constantly is painful to do so, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be admired and cherished. the bravest of soldiers often, and very naturally, "feel it unpleasant" to go into action; but a court-martial which did its duty would make short work of the officer who promulgated the doctrine that his men _ought_ to feel their duty unpleasant. i am very well aware, as i suppose most thoughtful people are in these times, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant; and i am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the worst forms of christianity are of great practical advantage to them. what deductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every church exercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the churches like their shadow, i need not now consider; but they are assuredly not small. if agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they gain a good deal on the other. people who talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the christianity of the churches is something more than faith in the ideal personality of jesus, which they create for themselves, _plus_ so much as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of the maxims of the sermon on the mount. trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and a _plébiscite_ of the christians of europe, if they were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority. preachers, orthodox and heterodox, din into our ears that the world cannot get on without faith of some sort. there is a sense in which that is as eminently as obviously true; there is another, in which, in my judgment, it is as eminently as obviously false, and it seems to me that the hortatory, or pulpit, mind is apt to oscillate between the false and the true meanings, without being aware of the fact. it is quite true that the ground of every one of our actions, and the validity of all our reasonings, rest upon the great act of faith, which leads us to take the experience of the past as a safe guide in our dealings with the present and the future. from the nature of ratiocination, it is obvious that the axioms, on which it is based, cannot be demonstrated by ratiocination. it is also a trite observation that, in the business of life, we constantly take the most serious action upon evidence of an utterly insufficient character. but it is surely plain that faith is not necessarily entitled to dispense with ratiocination because ratiocination cannot dispense with faith as a starting-point; and that because we are often obliged, by the pressure of events, to act on very bad evidence, it does not follow that it is proper to act on such evidence when the pressure is absent. the writer of the epistle to the hebrews tells us that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." in the authorised version, "substance" stands for "assurance," and "evidence" for "proving." the question of the exact meaning of the two words, [greek: hypostasis] and [greek: elegchos] affords a fine field of discussion for the scholar and the metaphysician. but i fancy we shall be not far from the mark if we take the writer to have had in his mind the profound psychological truth, that men constantly feel certain about things for which they strongly hope, but have no evidence, in the legal or logical sense of the word; and he calls this feeling "faith." i may have the most absolute faith that a friend has not committed the crime of which he is accused. in the early days of english history, if my friend could have obtained a few more compurgators of a like robust faith, he would have been acquitted. at the present day, if i tendered myself as a witness on that score, the judge would tell me to stand down, and the youngest barrister would smile at my simplicity. miserable indeed is the man who has not such faith in some of his fellow-men--only less miserable than the man who allows himself to forget that such faith is not, strictly speaking, evidence; and when his faith is disappointed, as will happen now and again, turns timon and blames the universe for his own blunders. and so, if a man can find a friend, the hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in the jesus of any, or all, of the gospels, let him live by faith in that ideal. who shall or can forbid him? but let him not delude himself with the notion that his faith is evidence of the objective reality of that in which he trusts. such evidence is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science, as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts at present to very little. it appears that mr. gladstone some time ago asked mr. laing if he could draw up a short summary of the negative creed; a body of negative propositions, which have so far been adopted on the negative side as to be what the apostles' and other accepted creeds are on the positive; and mr. laing at once kindly obliged mr. gladstone with the desired articles--eight of them. if any one had preferred this request to me, i should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, cannot have any. agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. that principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as socrates; as old as the writer who said, "try all things, hold fast by that which is good;" it is the foundation of the reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. positively the principle may be expressed: in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. and negatively: in matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. that i take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. the results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. that which is unproven to-day may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow. the only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. and the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction. agnostics who never fail in carrying out their principles are, i am afraid, as rare as other people of whom the same consistency can be truthfully predicated. but, if you were to meet with such a phoenix and to tell him that you had discovered that two and two make five, he would patiently ask you to state your reasons for that conviction, and express his readiness to agree with you if he found them satisfactory. the apostolic injunction to "suffer fools gladly" should be the rule of life of a true agnostic. i am deeply conscious how far i myself fall short of this ideal, but it is my personal conception of what agnostics ought to be. however, as i began by stating, i speak only for myself; and i do not dream of anathematizing and excommunicating mr. laing. but, when i consider his creed and compare it with the athanasian, i think i have on the whole a clearer conception of the meaning of the latter. "polarity," in article viii, for example, is a word about which i heard a good deal in my youth, when "naturphilosophie" was in fashion, and greatly did i suffer from it. for many years past, whenever i have met with "polarity" anywhere but in a discussion of some purely physical topic, such as magnetism, i have shut the book. mr. laing must excuse me if the force of habit was too much for me when i read his eighth article. and now, what is to be said to mr. harrison's remarkable deliverance "on the future of agnosticism "?[ ] i would that it were not my business to say anything, for i am afraid i can say nothing which shall manifest my great personal respect for this able writer, and for the zeal and energy with which he ever and anon galvanises the weakly frame of positivism until it looks, more than ever, like john bunyan's pope and pagan rolled into one. there is a story often repeated, and i am afraid none the less mythical on that account, of a valiant and loud-voiced corporal in command of two full privates who, falling in with a regiment of the enemy in the dark, orders it to surrender under pain of instant annihilation by his force; and the enemy surrenders accordingly. i am always reminded of this tale when i read the positivist commands to the forces of christianity and of science; only the enemy show no more signs of intending to obey now than they have done any time these forty years. the allocution under consideration has a certain papal flavour. mr. harrison speaks with authority and not as one of the common scribes of the period. he knows not only what agnosticism is and how it has come about, but what will become of it. the agnostic is to content himself with being the precursor of the positivist. in his place, as a sort of navvy levelling the ground and cleansing it of such poor stuff as christianity, he is a useful creature who deserves patting on the back, on condition that he does not venture beyond his last. but let not these scientific sanballats presume that they are good enough to take part in the building of the temple--they are mere samaritans, doomed to die out in proportion as the religion of humanity is accepted by mankind. well, if that is their fate, they have time to be cheerful. but let us hear mr. harrison's pronouncement of their doom. "agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion, an entirely negative stage, the point reached by physicists, a purely mental conclusion, with no relation to things social at all" (p. ). i am quite dazed by this declaration. are there, then, any "conclusions" that are not "purely mental"? is there "no relation to things social" in "mental conclusions" which affect men's whole conception of life? was that prince of agnostics, david hume, particularly imbued with physical science? supposing physical science to be non-existent, would not the agnostic principle, applied by the philologist and the historian, lead to exactly the same results? is the modern more or less complete suspension of judgment as to the facts of the history of regal rome, or the real origin of the homeric poems, anything but agnosticism in history and in literature? and if so, how can agnosticism be the "mere negation of the physicist"? "agnosticism is a stage in the evolution of religion." no two people agree as to what is meant by the term "religion"; but if it means, as i think it ought to mean, simply the reverence and love for the ethical ideal, and the desire to realise that ideal in life, which every man ought to feel--then i say agnosticism has no more to do with it than it has to do with music or painting. if, on the other hand, mr. harrison, like most people, means by "religion" theology, then, in my judgment, agnosticism can be said to be a stage in its evolution, only as death may be said to be the final stage in the evolution of life. when agnostic logic is simply one of the canons of thought, agnosticism, as a distinctive faith, will have spontaneously disappeared (p. ). i can but marvel that such sentences as this, and those already quoted, should have proceeded from mr. harrison's pen. does he really mean to suggest that agnostics have a logic peculiar to themselves? will lie kindly help me out of my bewilderment when i try to think of "logic" being anything else than the canon (which, i believe, means rule) of thought? as to agnosticism being a distinctive faith, i have already shown that it cannot possibly be anything of the kind, unless perfect faith in logic is distinctive of agnostics; which, after all, it may be. agnosticism as a religious philosophy _per se_ rests on an almost total ignoring of history and social evolution (p. ). but neither _per se_ nor _per aliud_ has agnosticism (if i know anything about it) the least pretension to be a religious philosophy; so far from resting on ignorance of history, and that social evolution of which history is the account, it is and has been the inevitable result of the strict adherence to scientific methods by historical investigators. our forefathers were quite confident about the existence of romulus and remus, of king arthur, and of hengist and horsa. most of us have become agnostics in regard to the reality of these worthies. it is a matter of notoriety of which mr. harrison, who accuses us all so freely of ignoring history, should not be ignorant, that the critical process which has shattered the foundations of orthodox christian doctrine owes its origin, not to the devotees of physical science, but, before all, to richard simon, the learned french oratorian, just two hundred years ago. i cannot find evidence that either simon, or any one of the great scholars and critics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who have continued simon's work, had any particular acquaintance with physical science. i have already pointed out that hume was independent of it. and certainly one of the most potent influences in the same direction, upon history in the present century, that of grote, did not come from the physical side. physical science, in fact, has had nothing directly to do with the criticism of the gospels; it is wholly incompetent to furnish demonstrative evidence that any statement made in these histories is untrue. indeed, modern physiology can find parallels in nature for events of apparently the most eminently supernatural kind recounted in some of those histories. it is a comfort to hear, upon mr. harrison's authority, that the laws of physical nature show no signs of becoming "less definite, less consistent, or less popular as time goes on" (p. ). how a law of nature is to become indefinite, or "inconsistent," passes my poor powers of imagination. but with universal suffrage and the coach-dog theory of premiership in full view; the theory, i mean, that the whole duty of a political chief is to look sharp for the way the social coach is driving, and then run in front and bark loud--as if being the leading noise-maker and guiding were the same things--it is truly satisfactory to me to know that the laws of nature are increasing in popularity. looking at recent developments of the policy which is said to express the great heart of the people, i have had my doubts of the fact; and my love for my fellow-countrymen has led me to reflect, with dread, on what will happen to them, if any of the laws of nature ever become so unpopular in their eyes, as to be voted down by the transcendent authority of universal suffrage. if the legion of demons, before they set out on their journey in the swine, had had time to hold a meeting and to resolve unanimously "that the law of gravitation is oppressive and ought to be repealed," i am afraid it would have made no sort of difference to the result, when their two thousand unwilling porters were once launched down the steep slopes of the fatal shore of gennesaret. the question of the place of religion as an element of human nature, as a force of human society, its origin, analysis, and functions, has never been considered at all from an agnostic point of view (p. ). i doubt not that mr. harrison knows vastly more about history than i do; in fact, he tells the public that some of my friends and i have had no opportunity of occupying ourselves with that subject. i do not like to contradict any statement which mr. harrison makes on his own authority; only, if i may be true to my agnostic principles, i humbly ask how he has obtained assurance on this head. i do not profess to know anything about the range of mr. harrison's studies; but as he has thought it fitting to start the subject, i may venture to point out that, on evidence adduced, it might be equally permissible to draw the conclusion that mr. harrison's other labours have not allowed him to acquire that acquaintance with the methods and results of physical science, or with the history of philosophy, or of philological and historical criticism, which is essential to any one who desires to obtain a right understanding of agnosticism. incompetence in philosophy, and in all branches of science except mathematics, is the well-known mental characteristic of the founder of positivism. faithfulness in disciples is an admirable quality in itself; the pity is that it not unfrequently leads to the imitation of the weaknesses as well as of the strength of the master. it is only such over-faithfulness which can account for a "strong mind really saturated with the historical sense" (p. ) exhibiting the extraordinary forgetfulness of the historical fact of the existence of david hume implied by the assertion that it would be difficult to name a single known agnostic who has given to history anything like the amount of thought and study which he brings to a knowledge of the physical world (p. ). whoso calls to mind what i may venture to term the bright side of christianity--that ideal of manhood, with its strength and its patience, its justice and its pity for human frailty, its helpfulness to the extremity of self-sacrifice, its ethical purity and nobility, which apostles have pictured, in which armies of martyrs have placed their unshakable faith, and whence obscure men and women, like catherine of sienna and john knox, have derived the courage to rebuke popes and kings--is not likely to underrate the importance of the christian faith as a factor in human history, or to doubt that if that faith should prove to be incompatible with our knowledge, or necessary want of knowledge, some other hypostasis of men's hopes, genuine enough and worthy enough to replace it, will arise. but that the incongruous mixture of bad science with eviscerated papistry, out of which comte manufactured the positivist religion, will be the heir of the christian ages, i have too much respect for the humanity of the future to believe. charles the second told his brother, "they will not kill me, james, to make you king." and if critical science is remorselessly destroying the historical foundations of the noblest ideal of humanity which mankind have yet worshipped, it is little likely to permit the pitiful reality to climb into the vacant shrine. that a man should determine to devote himself to the service of humanity--including intellectual and moral self-culture under that name; that this should be, in the proper sense of the word, his religion--is not only an intelligible, but, i think, a laudable resolution. and i am greatly disposed to believe that it is the only religion which will prove itself to be unassailably acceptable so long as the human race endures. but when the comtist asks me to worship "humanity"--that is to say, to adore the generalised conception of men as they ever have been and probably ever will be--i must reply that i could just as soon bow down and worship the generalised conception of a "wilderness of apes." surely we are not going back to the days of paganism, when individual men were deified, and the hard good sense of a dying vepasian could prompt the bitter jest, "ut puto deus fio." no divinity doth hedge a modern man, be he even a sovereign ruler. nor is there any one, except a municipal magistrate, who is officially declared worshipful. but if there is no spark of worship-worthy divinity in the individual twigs of humanity, whence comes that godlike splendour which the moses of positivism fondly imagines to pervade the whole bush? i know no study which is so unutterably saddening as that of the evolution of humanity, as it is set forth in the annals of history. out of the darkness of prehistoric ages man emerges with the marks of his lowly origin strong upon him. he is a brute, only more intelligent than the other brutes, a blind prey to impulses, which as often as not lead him to destruction; a victim to endless illusions, which make his mental existence a terror and a burden, and fill his physical life with barren toil and battle. he attains a certain degree of physical comfort, and develops a more or less workable theory of life, in such favourable situations as the plains of mesopotamia or of egypt, and then, for thousands and thousands of years, struggles, with varying fortunes, attended by infinite wickedness, bloodshed, and misery, to maintain himself at this point against the greed and the ambition of his fellow-men. he makes a point of killing and otherwise persecuting all those who first try to get him to move on; and when he has moved on a step, foolishly confers post-mortem deification on his victims. he exactly repeats the process with all who want to move a step yet farther. and the best men of the best epochs are simply those who make the fewest blunders and commit the fewest sins. that one should rejoice in the good man, forgive the bad man, and pity and help all men to the best of one's ability, is surely indisputable. it is the glory of judaism and of christianity to have proclaimed this truth, through all their aberrations. but the worship of a god who needs forgiveness and help, and deserves pity every hour of his existence, is no better than that of any other voluntarily selected fetish. the emperor julian's project was hopeful in comparison with the prospects of the comtist anthropolatry. when the historian of religion in the twentieth century is writing about the nineteenth, i foresee he will say something of this kind: the most curious and instructive events in the religious history of the preceding century are the rise and progress of two new sects called mormons and positivists. to the student who has carefully considered these remarkable phenomena nothing in the records of religious self-delusion can appear improbable. the mormons arose in the midst of the great republic, which, though comparatively insignificant, at that time, in territory as in the number of its citizens, was (as we know from the fragments of the speeches of its orators which have come down to us) no less remarkable for the native intelligence of its population than for the wide extent of their information, owing to the activity of their publishers in diffusing all that they could invent, beg, borrow, or steal. nor were they less noted for their perfect freedom from all restraints in thought, or speech, or deed; except, to be sure, the beneficent and wise influence of the majority, exerted, in case of need, through an institution known as "tarring and feathering," the exact nature of which is now disputed. there is a complete consensus of testimony that the founder of mormonism, one joseph smith, was a low-minded, ignorant scamp, and that he stole the "scriptures" which he propounded; not being clever enough to forge even such contemptible stuff as they contain. nevertheless he must have been a man of some force of character, for a considerable number of disciples soon gathered about him. in spite of repeated outbursts of popular hatred and violence--during one of which persecutions smith was brutally murdered--the mormon body steadily increased, and became a flourishing community. but the mormon practices being objectionable to the majority, they were, more than once, without any pretence of law, but by force of riot, arson, and murder, driven away from the land they had occupied. harried by these persecutions, the mormon body eventually committed itself to the tender mercies of a desert as barren as that of sinai; and after terrible sufferings and privations, reached the oasis of utah. here it grew and flourished, sending out missionaries to, and receiving converts from, all parts of europe, sometimes to the number of , in a year; until, in , the rich and flourishing community numbered , souls in utah alone, while there were probably , or , scattered abroad elsewhere. in the whole history of religions there is no more remarkable example of the power of faith; and, in this case, the founder of that faith was indubitably a most despicable creature. it is interesting to observe that the course taken by the great republic and its citizens runs exactly parallel with that taken by the roman empire and its citizens towards the early christians, except that the romans had a certain legal excuse for their acts of violence, inasmuch as the christian "sodalitia" were not licensed, and consequently were, _ipso facto_, illegal assemblages. until, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the united states legislature decreed the illegality of polygamy, the mormons were wholly within the law. nothing can present a greater contrast to all this than the history of the postivists. this sect arose much about the same time as that of the mormons, in the upper and most instructed stratum of the quick-witted, sceptical population of paris. the founder, auguste comte, was a teacher of mathematics, but of no eminence in that department of knowledge, and with nothing but an amateur's acquaintance with physical, chemical, and biological science. his works are repulsive, on account of the dull diffuseness of their style, and a certain air, as of a superior person, which characterises them; but nevertheless they contain good things here and there. it would take too much space to reproduce in detail a system which proposes to regulate all human life by the promulgation of a gentile leviticus. suffice it to say, that m. comte may be described as a syncretic, who, like the gnostics of early church history, attempted to combine the substance of imperfectly comprehended contemporary science with the form of roman christianity. it may be that this is the reason why his disciples were so very angry with some obscure people called agnostics, whose views, if we may judge by the account left in the works of a great positivist controversial writer, were very absurd. to put the matter briefly, m. comte, finding christianity and science at daggers drawn, seems to have said to science, "you find christianity rotten at the core, do you? well, i will scoop out the inside of it." and to romanism: "you find science mere dry light--cold and bare. well, i will put your shell over it, and so, as schoolboys make a spectre out of a turnip and a tallow candle, behold the new religion of humanity complete!" unfortunately neither the romanists, nor the people who were something more than amateurs in science, could be got to worship m. comte's new idol properly. in the native country of positivism, one distinguished man of letters and one of science, for a time, helped to make up a roomful of the faithful, but their love soon grew cold. in england, on the other hand, there appears to be little doubt that, in the ninth decade of the century, the multitude of disciples reached the grand total of several score. they had the advantage of the advocacy of one or two most eloquent and learned apostles, and, at any rate, the sympathy of several persons of light and leading; and, if they were not seen, they were heard, all over the world. on the other hand, as a sect, they laboured under the prodigious disadvantage of being refined, estimable people, living in the midst of the worn-out civilisation of the old world; where any one who had tried to persecute them, as the mormons were persecuted, would have been instantly hanged. but the majority never dreamed of persecuting them; on the contrary, they were rather given to scold and otherwise try the patience of the majority. the history of these sects in the closing years of the century is highly instructive. mormonism ... but i find i have suddenly slipped off mr. harrison's tripod, which i had borrowed for the occasion. the fact is, i am not equal to the prophetical business, and ought not to have undertaken it. * * * * * [it did not occur to me, while writing the latter part of this essay, that it could be needful to disclaim the intention of putting the religious system of comte on a level with mormonism. and i was unaware of the fact that mr. harrison rejects the greater part of the positivist religion, as taught by comte. i have, therefore, erased one or two passages, which implied his adherence to the "religion of humanity" as developed by comte, .] footnotes: [ ] see the _official report of the church congress held at manchester_, october , pp. , . [ ] in this place and in the eleventh essay, there are references to the late archbishop of york which are of no importance to my main argument, and which i have expunged because i desire to obliterate the traces of a temporary misunderstanding with a man of rare ability, candour, and wit, for whom i entertained a great liking and no less respect. i rejoice to think now of the (then) bishop's cordial hail the first time we met after our little skirmish, "well, is it to be peace or war?" i replied, "a little of both." but there was only peace when we parted, and ever after. [ ] dr. wace tells us, "it may be asked how far we can rely on the accounts we possess of our lord's teaching on these subjects." and he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by m. renan's practical surrender of the adverse case." i thought i knew m. renan's works pretty well, but i have contrived to miss this "practical" (i wish dr. wace had defined the scope of that useful adjective) surrender. however, as dr. wace can find no difficulty in pointing out the passage of m. renan's writings, by which he feels justified in making his statement, i shall wait for further enlightenment, contenting myself, for the present, with remarking that if m. renan were to retract and do penance in notre-dame to-morrow for any contributions to biblical criticism that may be specially his property, the main results of that criticism, as they are set forth in the works of strauss, baur, reuss, and volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected. [ ] see de gobineau, _les religions et les philosophies dans l'asie centrale_; and the recently published work of mr. e.g. browne, _the episode of the bab_. [ ] here, as always, the revised version is cited. [ ] does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to betaken _au sérieux_ or not? is the account of the deluge, accepted as true in the new testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of abraham, also accepted as true therein? by what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the law on stone by the hand of jahveh is literally true? if the story of the fall is not the true record of an historical occurrence, what becomes of pauline theology? yet the story of the fall as directly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the creation or that of the deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously legendary series. [ ] see, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, dr. abbott's article on the gospels in the _encyclopædia britannica_; and the remarkable monograph by professor volkmar, _jesus nazarenus und die erste christliche zeit_ ( ). whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which, they adopt is unimpeachable. [ ] notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _quarterly review_, i repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers. [ ] their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form. otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. these events are inexplicable, except the agency of "spirits" is admitted. therefore "spirits" were the cause of the phenomena. and the heads of the reply are always the same. remember goethe's aphorism: "alles factische ist schon theorie." trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena. no one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits: and there is abundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways. therefore, the utmost that can be reasonably asked for, on the evidence as it stands, is suspension of judgment. and, on the necessity for even that suspension, reasonable men may differ, according to their views of probability. [ ] yet i must somehow have laid hold of the pith of the matter, for, many years afterwards, when dean mansel's bampton lectures were published, it seemed to me i already knew all that this eminently agnostic thinker had to tell me. [ ] _kritik der reinen vernunft_. edit. hartenstein, p. . [ ] _report of the church congress_, manchester, , p. . [ ] _fortnightly review_, jan. . viii: agnosticism: a rejoinder [ ] those who passed from dr. wace's article in the last number of the "nineteenth century" to the anticipatory confutation of it which followed in "the new reformation," must have enjoyed the pleasure of a dramatic surprise--just as when the fifth act of a new play proves unexpectedly bright and interesting. mrs. ward will, i hope, pardon the comparison, if i say that her effective clearing away of antiquated incumbrances from the lists of the controversy, reminds me of nothing so much as of the action of some neat-handed, but strong-wristed, phyllis, who, gracefully wielding her long-handled "turk's head," sweeps away the accumulated results of the toil of generations of spiders. i am the more indebted to this luminous sketch of the results of critical investigation, as it is carried out among these theologians who are men of science and not mere counsel for creeds, since it has relieved me from the necessity of dealing with the greater part of dr. wace's polemic, and enables me to devote more space to the really important issues which have been raised.[ ] perhaps, however, it may be well for me to observe that approbation of the manner in which a great biblical scholar, for instance, reuss, does his work does not commit me to the adoption of all, or indeed any of his views; and, further, that the disagreements of a series of investigators do not in any way interfere with the fact that each of them has made important contributions to the body of truth ultimately established. if i cite buffon, linnæus, lamarck, and cuvier, as having each and all taken a leading share in building up modern biology, the statement that every one of these great naturalists disagreed with, and even more or less contradicted, all the rest is quite true; but the supposition that the latter assertion is in any way inconsistent with the former, would betray a strange ignorance of the manner in which all true science advances. dr. wace takes a great deal of trouble to make it appear that i have desired to evade the real questions raised by his attack upon me at the church congress. i assure the reverend principal that in this, as in some other respects, he has entertained a very erroneous conception of my intentions. things would assume more accurate proportions in dr. wace's mind, if he would kindly remember that it is just thirty years since ecclesiastical thunderbolts began to fly about my ears. i have had the "lion and the bear" to deal with, and it is long since i got quite used to the threatenings of episcopal goliaths, whose croziers were like unto a weaver's beam. so that i almost think i might not have noticed dr. wace's attack, personal as it was; and although, as he is good enough to tell us, separate copies are to be had for the modest equivalent of twopence, as a matter of fact, it did not come under my notice for a long time after it was made. may i further venture to point out that (reckoning postage) the expenditure of twopence-halfpenny, or, at the most, threepence, would have enabled dr. wace so far to comply with ordinary conventions as to direct my attention to the fact that he had attacked me before a meeting at which i was not present? i really am not responsible for the five months' neglect of which dr. wace complains. singularly enough, the englishry who swarmed about the engadine, during the three months that i was being brought back to life by the glorious air and perfect comfort of the maloja, did not, in my hearing, say anything about the important events which had taken place at the church congress; and i think i can venture to affirm that there was not a single copy of dr. wace's pamphlet in any of the hotel libraries which i rummaged, in search of something more edifying than dull english or questionable french novels. and now, having, as i hope, set myself right with the public as regards the sins of commission and omission with which i have been charged, i feel free to deal with matters to which time and type may be more profitably devoted. i believe that there is not a solitary argument i have used, or that i am about to use, which is original, or has anything to do with the fact that i have been chiefly occupied with natural science. they are all, facts and reasoning alike, either identical with, or consequential upon, propositions which are to be found in the works of scholars and theologians of the highest repute in the only two countries, holland and germany,[ ] in which, at the present time, professors of theology are to be found, whose tenure of their posts does not depend upon the results to which their inquiries lead them.[ ] it is true that, to the best of my ability, i have satisfied myself of the soundness of the foundations on which my arguments are built, and i desire to be held fully responsible for everything i say. but, nevertheless, my position is really no more than that of an expositor; and my justification for undertaking it is simply that conviction of the supremacy of private judgment (indeed, of the impossibility of escaping it) which is the foundation of the protestant reformation, and which was the doctrine accepted by the vast majority of the anglicans of my youth, before that backsliding towards the "beggarly rudiments" of an effete and idolatrous sacerdotalism which has, even now, provided us with the saddest spectacle which has been offered to the eyes of englishmen in this generation. a high court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with a host of great lawyers in battle array, is and, for heaven knows how long, will be, occupied with these very questions of "washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels," which the master, whose professed representatives are rending the church over these squabbles, had in his mind when, as we are told, he uttered the scathing rebuke:-- well did isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. but in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. (mark vii. - .) men who can be absorbed in bickerings over miserable disputes of this kind can have but little sympathy with the old evangelical doctrine of the "open bible," or anything but a grave misgiving of the results of diligent reading of the bible, without the help of ecclesiastical spectacles, by the mass of the people. greatly to the surprise of many of my friends, i have always advocated the reading of the bible, and the diffusion of the study of that most remarkable collection of books among the people. its teachings are so infinitely superior to those of the sects, who are just as busy now as the pharisees were eighteen hundred years ago, in smothering them under "the precepts of men"; it is so certain, to my mind, that the bible contains within itself the refutation of nine-tenths of the mixture of sophistical metaphysics and old-world superstition which has been piled round it by the so-called christians of later times; it is so clear that the only immediate and ready antidote to the poison which has been mixed with christianity, to the intoxication and delusion of mankind, lies in copious draughts from the undefiled spring, that i exercise the right and duty of free judgment on the part of every man, mainly for the purpose of inducing other laymen to follow my example. if the new testament is translated into zulu by protestant missionaries, it must be assumed that a zulu convert is competent to draw from its contents all the truths which it is necessary for him to believe. i trust that i may, without immodesty, claim to be put on the same footing as a zulu. the most constant reproach which is launched against persons of my way of thinking is that it is all very well for us to talk about the deductions of scientific thought, but what are the poor and the uneducated to do? has it ever occurred to those who talk in this fashion, that their creeds and the articles of their several confessions, their determination of the exact nature and extent of the teachings of jesus, their expositions of the real meaning of that which is written in the epistles (to leave aside all questions concerning the old testament), are nothing more than deductions which, at any rate, profess to be the result of strictly scientific thinking, and which are not worth attending to unless they really possess that character? if it is not historically true that such and such things happened in palestine eighteen centuries ago, what becomes of christianity? and what is historical truth but that of which the evidence bears strict scientific investigation? i do not call to mind any problem of natural science which has come under my notice which is more difficult, or more curiously interesting as a mere problem, than that of the origin of the synoptic gospels and that of the historical value of the narratives which they contain. the christianity of the churches stands or falls by the results of the purely scientific investigation of these questions. they were first taken up, in a purely scientific spirit, about a century ago; they have been studied over and over again by men of vast knowledge and critical acumen; but he would be a rash man who should assert that any solution of these problems, as yet formulated, is exhaustive. the most that can be said is that certain prevalent solutions are certainly false, while others are more or less probably true. if i am doing my best to rouse my countrymen out of their dogmatic slumbers, it is not that they may be amused by seeing who gets the best of it in a contest between a "scientist" and a theologian. the serious question is whether theological men of science, or theological special pleaders, are to have the confidence of the general public; it is the question whether a country in which it is possible for a body of excellent clerical and lay gentlemen to discuss, in public meeting assembled, how much it is desirable to let the congregations of the faithful know of the results of biblical criticism, is likely to wake up with anything short of the grasp of a rough lay hand upon its shoulder; it is the question whether the new testament books, being, as i believe they were, written and compiled by people who, according to their lights, were perfectly sincere, will not, when properly studied as ordinary historical documents, afford us the means of self-criticism. and it must be remembered that the new testament books are not responsible for the doctrine invented by the churches that they are anything but ordinary historical documents. the author of the third gospel tells us, as straightforwardly as a man can, that he has no claim to any other character than that of an ordinary compiler and editor, who had before him the works of many and variously qualified predecessors. * * * * * in my former papers, according to dr. wace, i have evaded giving an answer to his main proposition, which he states as follows-- apart from all disputed points of criticism, no one practically doubts that our lord lived, and that he died on the cross, in the most intense sense of filial relation to his father in heaven, and that he bore testimony to that father's providence, love, and grace towards mankind. the lord's prayer affords a sufficient evidence on these points. if the sermon on the mount alone be added, the whole unseen world, of which the agnostic refuses to know anything, stands unveiled before us.... if jesus christ preached that sermon, made those promises, and taught that prayer, then any one who says that we know nothing of god, or of a future life, or of an unseen world, says that he does not believe jesus christ (pp. - ). again-- the main question at issue, in a word, is one which professor huxley has chosen to leave entirely on one side--whether, namely, allowing for the utmost uncertainty on other points of the criticism to which he appeals, there is any reasonable doubt that the lord's prayer and the sermon on the mount afford a true account of our lord's essential belief and cardinal teaching (p. .) i certainly was not aware that i had evaded the questions here stated; indeed i should say that i have indicated my reply to them pretty clearly; but, as dr. wace wants a plainer answer, he shall certainly be gratified. if, as dr. wace declares it is, his "whole case is involved in" the argument as stated in the latter of these two extracts, so much the worse for his whole case. for i am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for doubting whether the "sermon on the mount" was ever preached, and whether the so-called "lord's prayer" was ever prayed, by jesus of nazareth. my reasons for this opinion are, among others, these:--there is now no doubt that the three synoptic gospels, so far from being the work of three independent writers, are closely interdependent,[ ] and that in one of two ways. either all three contain, as their foundation, versions, to a large extent verbally identical, of one and the same tradition; or two of them are thus closely dependent on the third; and the opinion of the majority of the best critics has of late years more and more converged towards the conviction that our canonical second gospel (the so-called "mark's" gospel) is that which most closely represents the primitive groundwork of the three.[ ] that i take to be one of the most valuable results of new testament criticism, of immeasurably greater importance than the discussion about dates and authorship. but if, as i believe to be the case, beyond any rational doubt or dispute, the second gospel is the nearest extant representative of the oldest tradition, whether written or oral, how comes it that it contains neither the "sermon on the mount" nor the "lord's prayer," those typical embodiments, according to dr. wace, of the "essential belief and cardinal teaching" of jesus? not only does "mark's" gospel fail to contain the "sermon on the mount," or anything but a very few of the sayings contained in that collection; but, at the point of the history of jesus where the "sermon" occurs in "matthew," there is in "mark" an apparently unbroken narrative from the calling of james and john to the healing of simon's wife's mother. thus the oldest tradition not only ignores the "sermon on the mount," but, by implication, raises a probability against its being delivered when and where the later "matthew" inserts it in his compilation. and still more weighty is the fact that the third gospel, the author of which tells us that he wrote after "many" others had "taken in hand" the same enterprise; who should therefore have known the first gospel (if it existed), and was bound to pay to it the deference due to the work of an apostolic eye-witness (if he had any reason for thinking it was so)--this writer, who exhibits far more literary competence than the other two, ignores any "sermon on the mount," such as that reported by "matthew," just as much as the oldest authority does. yet "luke" has a great many passages identical, or parallel, with those in "matthew's" "sermon on the mount," which are, for the most part, scattered about in a totally different connection. interposed, however, between the nomination of the apostles and a visit to capernaum; occupying, therefore, a place which answers to that of the "sermon on the mount," in the first gospel, there is in the third gospel a discourse which is as closely similar to the "sermon on the mount," in some particulars, as it is widely unlike it in others. this discourse is said to have been delivered in a "plain" or "level place" (luke vi. ), and by way of distinction we may call it the "sermon on the plain." i see no reason to doubt that the two evangelists are dealing, to a considerable extent, with the same traditional material; and a comparison of the two "sermons" suggests very strongly that "luke's" version is the earlier. the correspondences between the two forbid the notion that they are independent. they both begin with a series of blessings, some of which are almost verbally identical. in the middle of each (luke vi. - , matt. v. - ) there is a striking exposition of the ethical spirit of the command given in leviticus xix. . and each ends with a passage containing the declaration that a tree is to be known by its fruit, and the parable of the house built on the sand. but while there are only verses in the "sermon on the plain" there are in the "sermon on the mount;" the excess in length of the latter being chiefly due to the long interpolations, one of verses before and one of verses after, the middlemost parallelism with luke. under these circumstances it is quite impossible to admit that there is more probability that "matthew's" version of the sermon is historically accurate, than there is that luke's version is so; and they cannot both be accurate. "luke" either knew the collection of loosely-connected and aphoristic utterances which appear under the name of the "sermon on the mount" in "matthew"; or he did not. if he did not, he must have been ignorant of the existence of such a document as our canonical "matthew," a fact which does not make for the genuineness, or the authority, of that book. if he did, he has shown that he does not care for its authority on a matter of fact of no small importance; and that does not permit us to conceive that he believed the first gospel to be the work of an authority to whom he ought to defer, let alone that of an apostolic eye-witness. the tradition of the church about the second gospel, which i believe to be quite worthless, but which is all the evidence there is for "mark's" authorship, would have us believe that "mark" was little more than the mouthpiece of the apostle peter. consequently, we are to suppose that peter either did not know, or did not care very much for, that account of the "essential belief and cardinal teaching" of jesus which is contained in the sermon on the mount; and, certainly, he could not have shared dr. wace's view of its importance.[ ] i thought that all fairly attentive and intelligent students of the gospels, to say nothing of theologians of reputation, knew these things. but how can any one who does know them have the conscience to ask whether there is "any reasonable doubt" that the sermon on the mount was preached by jesus of nazareth? if conjecture is permissible, where nothing else is possible, the most probable conjecture seems to be that "matthew," having a _cento_ of sayings attributed--rightly or wrongly it is impossible to say--to jesus among his materials, thought they were, or might be, records of a continuous discourse, and put them in at the place he thought likeliest. ancient historians of the highest character saw no harm in composing long speeches which never were spoken, and putting them into the mouths of statesmen and warriors; and i presume that whoever is represented by "matthew" would have been grievously astonished to find that any one objected to his following the example of the best models accessible to him. so with the "lord's prayer." absent in our representative of the oldest tradition, it appears in both "matthew" and "luke." there is reason to believe that every pious jew, at the commencement of our era, prayed three times a day, according to a formula which is embodied in the present "schmone-esre"[ ] of the jewish prayer-book. jesus, who was assuredly, in all respects, a pious jew, whatever else he may have been, doubtless did the same. whether he modified the current formula, or whether the so-called "lord's prayer" is the prayer substituted for the "schmone-esre" in the congregations of the gentiles, is a question which can hardly be answered. in a subsequent passage of dr. wace's article (p. ) he adds to the list of the verities which he imagines to be unassailable, "the story of the passion." i am not quite sure what he means by this. i am not aware that any one (with the exception of certain ancient heretics) has propounded doubts as to the reality of the crucifixion; and certainly i have no inclination to argue about the precise accuracy of every detail of that pathetic story of suffering and wrong. but, if dr. wace means, as i suppose he does, that that which, according to the orthodox view, happened after the crucifixion, and which is, in a dogmatic sense, the most important part of the story, is founded on solid historical proofs, i must beg leave to express a diametrically opposite conviction. what do we find when the accounts of the events in question, contained in the three synoptic gospels, are compared together? in the oldest, there is a simple, straightforward statement which, for anything that i have to urge to the contrary, may be exactly true. in the other two, there is, round this possible and probable nucleus, a mass of accretions of the most questionable character. the cruelty of death by crucifixion depended very much upon its lingering character. if there were a support for the weight of the body, as not unfrequently was the practice, the pain during the first hours of the infliction was not, necessarily, extreme; nor need any serious physical symptoms, at once, arise from the wounds made by the nails in the hands and feet, supposing they were nailed, which was not invariably the case. when exhaustion set in, and hunger, thirst, and nervous irritation had done their work, the agony of the sufferer must have been terrible; and the more terrible that, in the absence of any effectual disturbance of the machinery of physical life, it might be prolonged for many hours, or even days. temperate, strong men, such as were the ordinary galilean peasants, might live for several days on the cross. it is necessary to bear these facts in mind when we read the account contained in the fifteenth chapter of the second gospel. jesus was crucified at the third hour (xv. ), and the narrative seems to imply that he died immediately after the ninth hour (_v_. ). in this case, he would have been crucified only six hours; and the time spent on the cross cannot have been much longer, because joseph of arimathæa must have gone to pilate, made his preparations, and deposited the body in the rock-cut tomb before sunset, which, at that time of the year, was about the twelfth hour. that any one should die after only six hours' crucifixion could not have been at all in accordance with pilate's large experience of the effects of that method of punishment. it, therefore, quite agrees with what might be expected, that pilate "marvelled if he were already dead" and required to be satisfied on this point by the testimony of the roman officer who was in command of the execution party. those who have paid attention to the extraordinary difficult question, what are the indisputable signs of death?--will be able to estimate the value of the opinion of a rough soldier on such a subject; even if his report to the procurator were in no wise affected by the fact that the friend of jesus, who anxiously awaited his answer, was a man of influence and of wealth. the inanimate body, wrapped in linen, was deposited in a spacious,[ ] cool rock chamber, the entrance of which was closed, not by a well-fitting door, but by a stone rolled against the opening, which would of course allow free passage of air. a little more than thirty-six hours afterwards (friday p.m., to sunday a.m., or a little after) three women visit the tomb and find it empty. and they are told by a young man "arrayed in a white robe" that jesus is gone to his native country of galilee, and that the disciples and peter will find him there. thus it stands, plainly recorded, in the oldest tradition that, for any evidence to the contrary, the sepulchre may have been emptied at any time during the friday or saturday nights. if it is said that no jew would have violated the sabbath by taking the former course, it is to be recollected that joseph of arimathæa might well be familiar with that wise and liberal interpretation of the fourth commandment, which permitted works of mercy to men--nay, even the drawing of an ox or an ass out of a pit--on the sabbath. at any rate, the saturday night was free to the most scrupulous of observers of the law. these are the facts of the case as stated by the oldest extant narrative of them. i do not see why any one should have a word to say against the inherent probability of that narrative; and, for my part, i am quite ready to accept it as an historical fact, that so much and no more is positively known of the end of jesus of nazareth. on what grounds can a reasonable man be asked to believe any more? so far as the narrative in the first gospel, on the one hand, and those in the third gospel and the acts, on the other, go beyond what is stated in the second gospel, they are hopelessly discrepant with one another. and this is the more significant because the pregnant phrase "some doubted," in the first gospel, is ignored in the third. but it is said that we have the witness paul speaking to us directly in the epistles. there is little doubt that we have, and a very singular witness he is. according to his own showing, paul, in the vigour of his manhood, with every means of becoming acquainted, at first hand, with the evidence of eye-witnesses, not merely refused to credit them, but "persecuted the church of god and made havoc of it." the reasoning of stephen fell dead upon the acute intellect of this zealot for the traditions of his fathers: his eyes were blind to the ecstatic illumination of the martyr's countenance "as it had been the face of an angel;" and when, at the words "behold, i see the heavens opened and the son of man standing on the right hand of god," the murderous mob rushed upon and stoned the rapt disciple of jesus, paul ostentatiously made himself their official accomplice. yet this strange man, because he has a vision, one day, at once, and with equally headlong zeal, flies to the opposite pole of opinion. and he is most careful to tell us that he abstained from any re-examination of the facts. immediately i conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went i up to jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but i went away into arabia. (galatians i. , .) i do not presume to quarrel with paul's procedure. if it satisfied him, that was his affair; and, if it satisfies anyone else, i am not called upon to dispute the right of that person to be satisfied. but i certainly have the right to say that it would not satisfy me, in like case; that i should be very much ashamed to pretend that it could, or ought to, satisfy me; and that i can entertain but a very low estimate of the value of the evidence of people who are to be satisfied in this fashion, when questions of objective fact, in which their faith is interested, are concerned. so that when i am called upon to believe a great deal more than the oldest gospel tells me about the final events of the history of jesus on the authority of paul ( corinthians xv. - ) i must pause. did he think it, at any subsequent time, worth while "to confer with flesh and blood," or, in modern phrase, to re-examine the facts for himself? or was he ready to accept anything that fitted in with his preconceived ideas? does he mean, when he speaks of all the appearances of jesus after the crucifixion as if they were of the same kind, that they were all visions, like the manifestation to himself? and, finally, how is this account to be reconciled with those in the first and third gospels--which, as we have seen, disagree with one another? until these questions are satisfactorily answered, i am afraid that, so far as i am concerned, paul's testimony cannot be seriously regarded, except as it may afford evidence of the state of traditional opinion at the time at which he wrote, say between and a.d.; that is, more than twenty years after the event; a period much more than sufficient for the development of any amount of mythology about matters of which nothing was really known. a few years later, among the contemporaries and neighbours of the jews, and, if the most probable interpretation of the apocalypse can he trusted, among the followers of jesus also, it was fully believed, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the emperor nero was not really dead, but that he was hidden away somewhere in the east, and would speedily come again at the head of a great army, to be revenged upon his enemies.[ ] thus, i conceive that i have shown cause for the opinion that dr. wace's challenge touching the sermon on the mount, the lord's prayer, and the passion was more valorous than discreet. after all this discussion, i am still at the agnostic point. tell me, first, what jesus can be proved to have been, said, and done, and i will say whether i believe him, or in him,[ ] or not. as dr. wace admits that i have dissipated his lingering shade of unbelief about the bedevilment of the gadarene pigs, he might have done something to help mine. instead of that, he manifests a total want of conception of the nature of the obstacles which impede the conversion of his "infidels." the truth i believe to be, that the difficulties in the way of arriving at a sure conclusion as to these matters, from the sermon on the mount, the lord's prayer, or any other data offered by the synoptic gospels (and _a fortiori_ from the fourth gospel), are insuperable. every one of these records is coloured by the prepossessions of those among whom the primitive traditions arose, and of those by whom they were collected and edited: and the difficulty of making allowance for these prepossessions is enhanced by our ignorance of the exact dates at which the documents were first put together; of the extent to which they have been subsequently worked over and interpolated; and of the historical sense, or want of sense, and the dogmatic tendencies of their compilers and editors. let us see if there is any other road which will take us into something better than negation. there is a widespread notion that the "primitive church," while under the guidance of the apostles and their immediate successors, was a sort of dogmatic dovecot, pervaded by the most loving unity and doctrinal harmony. protestants, especially, are fond of attributing to themselves the merit of being nearer "the church of the apostles" than their neighbours; and they are the less to be excused for their strange delusion because they are great readers of the documents which prove the exact contrary. the fact is that, in the course of the first three centuries of its existence, the church rapidly underwent a process of evolution of the most remarkable character, the final stage of which is far more different from the first than anglicanism is from quakerism. the key to the comprehension of the problem of the origin of that which is now called "christianity," and its relation to jesus of nazareth, lies here. nor can we arrive at any sound conclusion as to what it is probable that jesus actually said and did, without being clear on this head. by far the most important and subsequently influential steps in the evolution of christianity took place in the course of the century, more or less, which followed upon the crucifixion. it is almost the darkest period of church history, but, most fortunately, the beginning and the end of the period are brightly illuminated by the contemporary evidence of two writers of whose historical existence there is no doubt,[ ] and against the genuineness of whose most important works there is no widely-admitted objection. these are justin, the philosopher and martyr, and paul, the apostle to the gentiles. i shall call upon these witnesses only to testify to the condition of opinion among those who called themselves disciples of jesus in their time. justin, in his dialogue with trypho the jew, which was written somewhere about the middle of the second century, enumerates certain categories of persons who, in his opinion, will, or will not, be saved,[ ] these are:-- . orthodox jews who refuse to believe that those who do observe it to be heretics. _saved_. . jews who observe the law; believe jesus to be the christ; but who insist on the observance of the law by gentile converts. _not saved_. . jews who observe the law; believe jesus to be the christ, and hold that gentile converts need not observe the law. _saved_ (in justin's opinion; but some of his fellow-christians think the contrary). . gentile converts to the belief in jesus as the christ, who observe the law. _saved_ (possibly). . gentile believers in jesus as the christ, who do not observe the law themselves (except so far as the refusal of idol sacrifices), but do not consider those who do observe it heretics. _saved_ (this is justin's own view). . gentile believers who do not observe the law, except in refusing idol sacrifices, and hold those who do observe it to be heretics. _saved_. . gentiles who believe jesus to be the christ and call themselves christians, but who eat meats sacrificed to idols. _not saved_. . gentiles who disbelieve in jesus as the christ. _not saved_. justin does not consider christians who believe in the natural birth of jesus, of whom he implies that there is a respectable minority, to be heretics, though he himself strongly holds the preternatural birth of jesus and his pre-existence as the "logos" or "word." he conceives the logos to be a second god, inferior to the first, unknowable god, with respect to whom justin, like philo, is a complete agnostic. the holy spirit is not regarded by justin as a separate personality, and is often mixed up with the "logos." the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul is, for justin, a heresy; and he is as firm a believer in the resurrection of the body, as in the speedy second coming and the establishment of the millennium. the pillar of the church in the middle of the second century--a much-travelled native of samaria--was certainly well acquainted with rome, probably with alexandria; and it is likely that he knew the state of opinion throughout the length and breadth of the christian world as well as any man of his time. if the various categories above enumerated are arranged in a series thus:-- _justin's christianity_ ________/\__________ / \ _orthodox_ _judæo-christianity_ _idolothytic_ _judaism_ ______/\______ _christianity_ _paganism_ / \ i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. it is obvious that they form a gradational series from orthodox judaism, on the extreme left, to paganism, whether philosophic or popular, on the extreme right; and it will further be observed that, while justin's conception of christianity is very broad, he rigorously excludes two classes of persons who, in his time, called themselves christians; namely, those who insist on circumcision and other observances of the law on the part of gentile converts; that is to say, the strict judæo-christians (ii.); and, on the other hand, those who assert the lawfulness of eating meat offered to idols--whether they are gnostic or not (vii.). these last i have called "idolothytic" christians, because i cannot devise a better name, not because it is strictly defensible etymologically. at the present moment, i do not suppose there is an english missionary in any heathen land who would trouble himself whether the materials of his dinner had been previously offered to idols or not. on the other hand, i suppose there is no protestant sect within the pale of orthodoxy, to say nothing of the roman and greek churches, which would hesitate to declare the practice of circumcision and the observance of the jewish sabbath and dietary rules, shockingly heretical. modern christianity has, in fact, not only shifted far to the right of justin's position, but it is of much narrower compass. _justin_ ___________/\________________ / \ _judæo-christianity_ _modern christianity_ _paganism_ _judaism_ _____/\_____ _______/\_______ / \ / \ i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. for, though it includes vii., and even, in saint and relic worship, cuts a "monstrous cantle" out of paganism, it excludes, not only all judæo-christians, but all who doubt that such are heretics. ever since the thirteenth century, the inquisition would have cheerfully burned, and in spain did abundantly burn, all persons who came under the categories ii., iii., iv., v. and the wolf would play the same havoc now, if it could only get its blood-stained jaws free from the muzzle imposed by the secular arm. further, there is not a protestant body except the unitarian, which would not declare justin himself a heretic, on account of his doctrine of the inferior godship of the logos; while i am very much afraid that, in strict logic, dr. wace would be under the necessity, so painful to him, of calling him an "infidel," on the same and on other grounds. now let us turn to our other authority. if there is any result of critical investigations of the sources of christianity which is certain,[ ] it is that paul of tarsus wrote the epistle to the galatians somewhere between the years and a.d., that is to say, roughly, twenty, or five-and-twenty years after the crucifixion. if this is so, the epistle to the galatians is one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, of extant documentary evidences of the state of the primitive church. and, be it observed, if it is paul's writing, it unquestionably furnishes us with the evidence of a participator in the transactions narrated. with the exception of two or three of the other pauline epistles, there is not one solitary book in the new testament of the authorship and authority of which we have such good evidence. and what is the state of things we find disclosed? a bitter quarrel, in his account of which paul by no means minces matters, or hesitates to hurl defiant sarcasms against those who were "reputed to be pillars": james "the brother of the lord," peter, the rock on whom jesus is said to have built his church, and john, "the beloved disciple." and no deference toward "the rock" withholds paul from charging peter to his face with "dissimulation." the subject of the hot dispute was simply this. were gentile converts bound to obey the law or not? paul answered in the negative; and, acting upon his opinion, he had created at antioch (and elsewhere) a specifically "christian" community, the sole qualifications for admission into which were the confession of the belief that jesus was the messiah, and baptism upon that confession. in the epistle in question, paul puts this--his "gospel," as he calls it--in its most extreme form. not only does he deny the necessity of conformity with the law, but he declares such conformity to have a negative value. "behold, i, paul, say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, christ will profit you nothing" (galatians v. ). he calls the legal observances "beggarly rudiments," and anathematises every one who preaches to the galatians any other gospel than his own. that is to say, by direct consequence, he anathematises the nazarenes of jerusalem, whose zeal for the law is testified by james in a passage of the acts cited further on. in the first epistle to the corinthians, dealing with the question of eating meat offered to idols, it is clear that paul himself thinks it a matter of indifference; but he advises that it should not he done, for the sake of the weaker brethren. on the other hand, the nazarenes of jerusalem most strenuously opposed paul's "gospel," insisting on every convert becoming a regular jewish proselyte, and consequently on his observance of the whole law; and this party was led by james and peter and john (galatians ii. ). paul does not suggest that the question of principle was settled by the discussion referred to in galatians. all he says is, that it ended in the practical agreement that he and barnabas should do as they had been doing, in respect to the gentiles; while james and peter and john should deal in their own fashion with jewish converts. afterwards, he complains bitterly of peter, because, when on a visit to antioch, he, at first, inclined to paul's view and ate with the gentile converts; but when "certain came from james," "drew back, and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. and the rest of the jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch as even barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation" (galatians ii. - ). there is but one conclusion to be drawn from paul's account of this famous dispute, the settlement of which determined the fortunes of the nascent religion. it is that the disciples at jerusalem, headed by "james, the lord's brother," and by the leading apostles, peter and john, were strict jews, who had objected to admit any converts into their body, unless these, either by birth, or by becoming proselytes, were also strict jews. in fact, the sole difference between james and peter and john, with the body of the disciples whom they led and the jews by whom they were surrounded, and with whom they, for many years, shared the religious observances of the temple, was that they believed that the messiah, whom the leaders of the nation yet looked for, had already come in the person of jesus of nazareth. the acts of the apostles is hardly a very trustworthy history; it is certainly of later date than the pauline epistles, supposing them to be genuine. and the writer's version of the conference of which paul gives so graphic a description, if that is correct, is unmistakably coloured with all the art of a reconciler, anxious to cover up a scandal. but it is none the less instructive on this account. the judgment of the "council" delivered by james is that the gentile converts shall merely "abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication." but notwithstanding the accommodation in which the writer of the acts would have us believe, the jerusalem church held to its endeavour to retain the observance of the law. long after the conference, some time after the writing of the epistles to the galatians and corinthians, and immediately after the despatch of that to the romans, paul makes his last visit to jerusalem, and presents himself to james and all the elders. and this is what the acts tells us of the interview:-- and they said unto him, thou seest, brother, how many thousands [or myriads] there are among the jews of them which have believed; and they are all zealous for the law; and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the jews which are among the gentiles to forsake moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. (acts xxi. , .) they therefore request that he should perform a certain public religious act in the temple, in order that all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law (_ibid_. ).[ ] how far paul could do what he is here requested to do, and which the writer of the acts goes on to say he did, with a clear conscience, if he wrote the epistles to the galatians and corinthians, i may leave any candid reader of these epistles to decide. the point to which i wish to direct attention is the declaration that the jerusalem church, led by the brother of jesus and by his personal disciples and friends, twenty years and more after his death, consisted of strict and zealous jews. tertullus, the orator, caring very little about the internal dissensions of the followers of jesus, speaks of paul as a "ringleader of the sect of the nazarenes" (acts xxiv. ), which must have affected james much in the same way as it would have moved the archbishop of canterbury, in george fox's day, to hear the latter called a "ringleader of the sect of anglicans." in fact, "nazarene" was, as is well known, the distinctive appellation applied to jesus; his immediate followers were known as nazarenes; while the congregation of the disciples, and, later, of converts at jerusalem--the jerusalem church--was emphatically the "sect of the nazarenes," no more, in itself, to be regarded as anything outside judaism than the sect of the sadducees, or that of the essenes.[ ] in fact, the tenets of both the sadducees and the essenes diverged much more widely from the pharisaic standard of orthodoxy than nazarenism did. let us consider the condition of affairs now (a.d. - ) in relation to that which obtained in justin's time, a century later. it is plain that the nazarenes--presided over by james, "the brother of the lord," and comprising within their body all the twelve apostles--belonged to justin's second category of "jews who observe the law, believe jesus to be the christ, but who insist on the observance of the law by gentile converts," up till the time at which the controversy reported by paul arose. they then, according to paul, simply allowed him to form his congregations of non-legal gentile converts at antioch and elsewhere; and it would seem that it was to these converts, who would come under justin's fifth category, that the title of "christian" was first applied. if any of these christians had acted upon the more than half-permission given by paul, and had eaten meats offered to idols, they would have belonged to justin's seventh category. hence, it appears that, if justin's opinion, which was probably that of the church generally in the middle of the second century, was correct, james and peter and john and their followers could not be saved; neither could paul, if he carried into practice his views as to the indifference of eating meats offered to idols. or, to put the matter another way, the centre of gravity of orthodoxy, which is at the extreme right of the series in the nineteenth century, was at the extreme left just before the middle of the first century, when the "sect of the nazarenes" constituted the whole church founded by jesus and the apostles; while, in the time of justin, it lay mid-way between the two. it is therefore a profound mistake to imagine that the judæo-christians (nazarenes and ebionites) of later times were heretical outgrowths from a primitive universalist "christianity." on the contrary, the universalist "christianity" is an outgrowth from the primitive, purely jewish, nazarenism; which, gradually eliminating all the ceremonial and dietary parts of the jewish law, has thrust aside its parent, and all the intermediate stages of its development, into the position of damnable heresies. such being the case, we are in a position to form a safe judgment of the limits within which the teaching of jesus of nazareth must have been confined. ecclesiastical authority would have us believe that the words which are given at the end of the first gospel, "go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost," are part of the last commands of jesus, issued at the moment of his parting with the eleven. if so, peter and john must have heard these words; they are too plain to be misunderstood; and the occasion is too solemn for them ever to be forgotten. yet the "acts" tells us that peter needed a vision to enable him so much as to baptize cornelius; and paul, in the galatians, knows nothing of words which would have completely borne him out as against those who, though they heard, must be supposed to have either forgotten, or ignored them. on the other hand, peter and john, who are supposed to have heard the "sermon on the mount," know nothing of the saying that jesus had not come to destroy the law, but that every jot and tittle of the law must be fulfilled, which surely would have been pretty good evidence for their view of the question. we are sometimes told that the personal friends and daily companions of jesus remained zealous jews and opposed paul's innovations, because they were hard of heart and dull of comprehension. this hypothesis is hardly in accordance with the concomitant faith of those who adopt it, in the miraculous insight and superhuman sagacity of their master; nor do i see any way of getting it to harmonise with the orthodox postulate; namely, that matthew was the author of the first gospel and john of the fourth. if that is so, then, most assuredly, matthew was no dullard; and as for the fourth gospel--a theosophic romance of the first order--it could have been written by none but a man of remarkable literary capacity, who had drunk deep of alexandrian philosophy. moreover, the doctrine of the writer of the fourth gospel is more remote from that of the "sect of the nazarenes" than is that of paul himself. i am quite aware that orthodox critics have been capable of maintaining that john, the nazarene, who was probably well past fifty years of age, when he is supposed to have written the most thoroughly judaising book in the new testament--the apocalypse--in the roughest of greek, underwent an astounding metamorphosis of both doctrine and style by the time he reached the ripe age of ninety or so, and provided the world with a history in which the acutest critic cannot [always] make out where the speeches of jesus end and the text of the narrative begins; while that narrative is utterly irreconcilable, in regard to matters of fact, with that of his fellow-apostle, matthew. the end of the whole matter is this:--the "sect of the nazarenes," the brother and the immediate followers of jesus, commissioned by him as apostles, and those who were taught by them up to the year a.d., were not "christians" in the sense in which that term has been understood ever since its asserted origin at antioch, but jews--strict orthodox jews--whose belief in the messiahship of jesus never led to their exclusion from the temple services, nor would have shut them out from the wide embrace of judaism.[ ] the open proclamation of their special view about the messiah was doubtless offensive to the pharisees, just as rampant low churchism is offensive to bigoted high churchism in our own country; or as any kind of dissent is offensive to fervid religionists of all creeds. to the sadducees, no doubt, the political danger of any messianic movement was serious; and they would have been glad to put down nazarenism, lest it should end in useless rebellion against their roman masters, like that other galilean movement headed by judas, a generation earlier. galilee was always a hotbed of seditious enthusiasm against the rule of rome; and high priest and procurator alike had need to keep a sharp eye upon natives of that district. on the whole, however, the nazarenes were but little troubled for the first twenty years of their existence; and the undying hatred of the jews against those later converts, whom they regarded as apostates and fautors of a sham judaism, was awakened by paul. from their point of view, he was a mere renegade jew, opposed alike to orthodox judaism and to orthodox nazarenism; and whose teachings threatened judaism with destruction. and, from their point of view, they were quite right. in the course of a century, pauline influences had a large share in driving primitive nazarenism from being the very heart of the new faith into the position of scouted error; and the spirit of paul's doctrine continued its work of driving christianity farther and farther away from judaism, until "meats offered to idols" might be eaten without scruple, while the nazarene methods of observing even the sabbath, or the passover, were branded with the mark of judaising heresy. but if the primitive nazarenes of whom the acts speak were orthodox jews, what sort of probability can there be that jesus was anything else? how can he have founded the universal religion which was not heard of till twenty years after his death?[ ] that jesus possessed, in a rare degree, the gift of attaching men to his person and to his fortunes; that he was the author of many a striking saying, and the advocate of equity, of love, and of humility; that he may have disregarded the subtleties of the bigots for legal observance, and appealed rather to those noble conceptions of religion which constituted the pith and kernel of the teaching of the great prophets of his nation seven hundred years earlier; and that, in the last scenes of his career, he may have embodied the ideal sufferer of isaiah, may be, as i think it is, extremely probable. but all this involves not a step beyond the borders of orthodox judaism. again, who is to say whether jesus proclaimed himself the veritable messiah, expected by his nation since the appearance of the pseudoprophetic work of daniel, a century and a half before his time; or whether the enthusiasm of his followers gradually forced him to assume that position? but one thing is quite certain: if that belief in the speedy second coming of the messiah which was shared by all parties in the primitive church, whether nazarene or pauline; which jesus is made to prophesy, over and over again, in the synoptic gospels; and which dominated the life of christians during the first century after the crucifixion;--if he believed and taught that, then assuredly he was under an illusion, and he is responsible for that which the mere effluxion of time has demonstrated to be a prodigious error. when i ventured to doubt "whether any protestant theologian who has a reputation to lose will say that he believes the gadarene story," it appears that i reckoned without dr. wace, who, referring to this passage in my paper, says:-- he will judge whether i fall under his description; but i repeat that i believe it, and that he has removed the only objection to my believing it (p. ). far be it from me to set myself up as a judge of any such delicate question as that put before me; but i think i may venture to express the conviction that, in the matter of courage, dr. wace has raised for himself a monument _ære perennius._ for really, in my poor judgment, a certain splendid intrepidity, such as one admires in the leader of a forlorn hope, is manifested by dr. wace when he solemnly affirms that he believes the gadarene story on the evidence offered. i feel less complimented perhaps than i ought to do, when i am told that i have been an accomplice in extinguishing in dr. wace's mind the last glimmer of doubt which common sense may have suggested. in fact, i must disclaim all responsibility for the use to which the information i supplied has been put. i formally decline to admit that the expression of my ignorance whether devils, in the existence of which i do not believe, if they did exist, might or might not be made to go out of men into pigs, can, as a matter of logic, have been of any use whatever to a person who already believed in devils and in the historical accuracy of the gospels. of the gadarene story, dr. wace, with all solemnity and twice over, affirms that he "believes it." i am sorry to trouble him further, but what does he mean by "it"? because there are two stories, one in "mark" and "luke," and the other in "matthew." in the former, which i quoted in my previous paper, there is one possessed man; in the latter there are two. the story is told fully, with the vigorous homely diction and the picturesque details of a piece of folklore, in the second gospel. the immediately antecedent event is the storm on the lake of gennesaret. the immediately consequent events are the message from the ruler of the synagogue and the healing of the woman with an issue of blood. in the third gospel, the order of events is exactly the same, and there is an extremely close general and verbal correspondence between the narratives of the miracle. both agree in stating that there was only one possessed man, and that he was the residence of many devils, whose name was "legion." in the first gospel, the event which immediately precedes the gadarene affair is, as before, the storm; the message from the ruler and the healing of the issue are separated from it by the accounts of the healing of a paralytic, of the calling of matthew, and of a discussion with some pharisees. again, while the second gospel speaks of the country of the "gerasenes" as the locality of the event, the third gospel has "gerasenes," "gergesenes," and "gadarenes" in different ancient mss.; while the first has "gadarenes." the really important points to be noticed, however, in the narrative of the first gospel, are these--that there are two possessed men instead of one; and that while the story is abbreviated by omissions, what there is of it is often verbally identical with the corresponding passages in the other two gospels. the most unabashed of reconcilers cannot well say that one man is the same as two, or two as one; and, though the suggestion really has been made, that two different miracles, agreeing in all essential particulars, except the number of the possessed, were effected immediately after the storm on the lake, i should be sorry to accuse any one of seriously adopting it. nor will it he pretended that the allegory refuge is accessible in this particular case. so, when dr. wace says that he believes in the synoptic evangelists' account of the miraculous bedevilment of swine, i may fairly ask which of them does he believe? does he hold by the one evangelist's story, or by that of the two evangelists? and having made his election, what reasons has he to give for his choice? if it is suggested that the witness of two is to be taken against that of one, not only is the testimony dealt with in that common-sense fashion against which the theologians of his school protest so warmly; not only is all question of inspiration at an end, but the further inquiry arises, after all, is it the testimony of two against one? are the authors of the versions in the second and third gospels really independent witnesses? in order to answer this question, it is only needful to place the english versions of the two side by side, and compare them carefully. it will then be seen that the coincidences between them, not merely in substance, but in arrangement, and in the use of identical words in the same order, are such, that only two alternatives are conceivable: either one evangelist freely copied from the other, or both based themselves upon a common source, which may either have been a written document, or a definite oral tradition learned by heart. assuredly, these two testimonies are not those of independent witnesses. further, when the narrative in the first gospel is compared with that in the other two, the same fact comes out. supposing, then, that dr. wace is right in his assumption that matthew, mark, and luke wrote the works which we find attributed to them by tradition, what is the value of their agreement, even that something more or less like this particular miracle occurred, since it is demonstrable, either that all depend on some antecedent statement, of the authorship of which nothing is known, or that two are dependent upon the third? dr. wace says he believes the gadarene story; whichever version of it he accepts, therefore, he believes that jesus said what he is stated in all the versions to have said, and thereby virtually declared that the theory of the nature of the spiritual world involved in the story is true. now i hold that this theory is false, that it is a monstrous and mischievous fiction; and i unhesitatingly express my disbelief in any assertion that it is true, by whomsoever made. so that, if dr. wace is right in his belief, he is also quite right in classing me among the people he calls "infidels"; and although i cannot fulfil the eccentric expectation that i shall glory in a title which, from my point of view, it would be simply silly to adopt, i certainly shall rejoice not to be reckoned among "christians" so long as the profession of belief in such stories as the gadarene pig affair, on the strength of a tradition of unknown origin, of which two discrepant reports, also of unknown origin, alone remain, forms any part of the christian faith. and, although i have, more than once, repudiated the gift of prophecy, yet i think i may venture to express the anticipation, that if "christians" generally are going to follow the line taken by dr. wace, it will not be long before all men of common sense qualify for a place among the "infidels." footnotes: [ ] i may perhaps return to the question of the authorship of the gospels. for the present i must content myself with warning my readers against any reliance upon dr. wace's statements as to the results arrived at by modern criticism. they are as gravely as surprisingly erroneous. [ ] the united states ought, perhaps, to be added, but i am not sure. [ ] imagine that all our chairs of astronomy had been founded in the fourteenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to sign ptolemaic articles. in that case, with every respect for the efforts of persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth, i think men of common sense would go elsewhere to learn astronomy. zeller's _vorträge und abhandlungen_ were published and came into my hands a quarter of a century ago. the writer's rank, as a theologian to begin with, and subsequently as a historian of greek philosophy, is of the highest. among these essays are two--_das urchirstenthum_ and _die tübinger historische schule_--which are likely to be of more use to those who wish to know the real state of the case than all that the official "apologists," with their one eye on truth and the other on the tenets of their sect, have written. for the opinion of a scientific theologian about theologians of this stamp see pp. and of the _vorträge_. [ ] i suppose this is what dr. wace is thinking about when he says that i allege that there "is no visible escape" from the supposition of an _ur-marcus_ (p. ). that a "theologian of repute" should confound an indisputable fact with one of the modes of explaining that fact is not so singular as those who are unaccustomed to the ways of theologians might imagine. [ ] any examiner whose duty it has been to examine into a case of "copying" will be particularly well prepared to appreciate the force of the case stated in that most excellent little book, _the common tradition of the synoptic gospels_, by dr. abbott and mr. rushbrooke (macmillan, ). to those who have not passed through such painful experiences i may recommend the brief discussion of the genuineness of the "casket letters" in my friend mr. skelton's interesting book, _maitland of lethington_. the second edition of holtzmann's _lehrbuch_, published in , gives a remarkably fair and full account of the present results of criticism. at p. he writes that the present burning question is whether the "relatively primitive narrative and the root of the other synoptic texts is contained in matthew or in mark. it is only on this point that properly-informed (_sachkundige_) critics differ," and he decides in favour of mark. [ ] holtzmann (_die synoptischen evangelien_, , p. ), following ewald, argues that the "source a" (= the threefold tradition, more or less) contained something that answered to the "sermon on the plain" immediately after the words of our present mark, "and he cometh into a house" (iii. ). but what conceivable motive could "mark" have for omitting it? holtzmann has no doubt, however, that the "sermon on the mount" is a compilation, or, as he calls it in his recently-published _lehrbuch_ (p. ), "an artificial mosaic work." [ ] see schürer, _geschichte des jüdischen volkes_, zweiter thiel, p. . [ ] spacious, because a young man could sit in it "on the right side" (xv. ), and therefore with plenty of room to spare. [ ] king herod had not the least difficulty in supposing the resurrection of john the baptist--"john, whom i beheaded, he is risen" (mark vi. ). [ ] i am very sorry for the interpolated "in," because citation ought to be accurate in small things as in great. but what difference it makes whether one "believes jesus" or "believes in jesus" much thought has not enabled me to discover. if you "believe him" you must believe him to be what he professed to be--that is, "believe in him;" and if you "believe in him" you must necessarily "believe him." [ ] true for justin: but there is a school of theological critics, who more or less question the historical reality of paul, and the genuineness of even the four cardinal epistles. [ ] see _dial. cum tryphone_, § and § . it is to be understood that justin does not arrange these categories in order, as i have done. [ ] i guard myself against being supposed to affirm that even the four cardinal epistles of paul may not have been seriously tampered with. see note , p. above. [ ] paul, in fact, is required to commit in jerusalem, an act of the same character as that which he brands as "dissimulation" on the part of peter in antioch. [ ] all this was quite clearly pointed out by ritschl nearly forty years ago. see _die entstchung der alt-katholischen kirche_ ( ), p. . [ ] "if every one was baptized as soon as he acknowledged jesus to be the messiah, the first christians can have been aware of no other essential differences from the jews."--zeller, _vorträge_ ( ), p. . [ ] dr. harnack, in the lately-published second edition of his _dogmengeschichte_, says (p. ), "jesus christ brought forward no new doctrine;" and again (p. ), "it is not difficult to set against every portion of the utterances of jesus an observation which deprives him of originality." see also zusatz , on the same page. ix: agnosticism and christianity [ ] nemo ergo ex me scire quærat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat.--augustinus, _de civ. dei_, xii. . [ ] the present discussion has arisen out of the use, which has become general in the last few years, of the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism." the people who call themselves "agnostics" have been charged with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "infidels." it has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination. to this wholly erroneous imputation, i have replied by showing that the term "agnostic" did, as a matter of fact, arise in a manner which negatives it; and my statement has not been, and cannot be, refuted. moreover, speaking for myself, and without impugning the right of any other person to use the term in another sense, i further say that agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. this principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. this is what agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism. that which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. the justification of the agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity. still speaking for myself, i add, that though agnosticism is not, and cannot be, a creed, except in so far as its general principle is concerned; yet that the application of that principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty. and, in so far as these ecclesiastical persons can be justified in their old-established custom (which many nowadays think more honoured in the breach than the observance) of using opprobrious names to those who differ from them, i fully admit their right to call me and those who think with me "infidels"; all i have ventured to urge is that they must not expect us to speak of ourselves by that title. the extent of the region of the uncertain, the number of the problems the investigation of which ends in a verdict of not proven, will vary according to the knowledge and the intellectual habits of the individual agnostic. i do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."[ ] what i am sure about is that there are many topics about which i know nothing; and which, so far as i can see, are out of reach of my faculties. but whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though i may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case. relatively to myself, i am quite sure that the region of uncertainty--the nebulous country in which words play the part of realities--is far more extensive than i could wish. materialism and idealism; theism and atheism; the doctrine of the soul and its mortality or immortality--appear in the history of philosophy like the shades of scandinavian heroes, eternally slaying one another and eternally coming to life again in a metaphysical "nifelheim." it is getting on for twenty-five centuries, at least, since mankind began seriously to give their minds to these topics. generation after generation, philosophy has been doomed to roll the stone uphill; and, just as all the world swore it was at the top, down it has rolled to the bottom again. all this is written in innumerable books; and he who will toil through them will discover that the stone is just where it was when the work began. hume saw this; kant saw it; since their time, more and more eyes have been cleansed of the films which prevented them from seeing it; until now the weight and number of those who refuse to be the prey of verbal mystifications has begun to tell in practical life. it was inevitable that a conflict should arise between agnosticism and theology; or rather, i ought to say, between agnosticism and ecclesiasticism. for theology, the science, is one thing; and ecclesiasticism, the championship of a foregone conclusion[ ] as to the truth of a particular form of theology, is another. with scientific theology, agnosticism has no quarrel. on the contrary, the agnostic, knowing too well the influence of prejudice and idiosyncrasy, even on those who desire most earnestly to be impartial, can wish for nothing more urgently than that the scientific theologian should not only be at perfect liberty to thresh out the matter in his own fashion; but that he should, if he can, find flaws in the agnostic position; and, even if demonstration is not to be had, that he should put, in their full force, the grounds of the conclusions he thinks probable. the scientific theologian admits the agnostic principle, however widely his results may differ from those reached by the majority of agnostics. but, as between agnosticism and ecclesiasticism, or, as our neighbours across the channel call it, clericalism, there can be neither peace nor truce. the cleric asserts that it is morally wrong not to believe certain propositions, whatever the results of a strict scientific investigation of the evidence of these propositions. he tells us "that religious error is, in itself, of an immoral nature."[ ] he declares that he has prejudged certain conclusions, and looks upon those who show cause for arrest of judgment as emissaries of satan. it necessarily follows that, for him, the attainment of faith, not the ascertainment of truth, is the highest aim of mental life. and, on careful analysis of the nature of this faith, it will too often be found to be, not the mystic process of unity with the divine, understood by the religious enthusiast; but that which the candid simplicity of a sunday scholar once defined it to be. "faith," said this unconscious plagiarist of tertullian, "is the power of saying you believe things which are incredible." now i, and many other agnostics, believe that faith, in this sense, is an abomination; and though we do not indulge in the luxury of self-righteousness so far as to call those who are not of our way of thinking hard names, we do not feel that the disagreement between ourselves and those who hold this doctrine is even more moral than intellectual. it is desirable there should be an end of any mistakes on this topic. if our clerical opponents were clearly aware of the real state of the case, there would be an end of the curious delusion, which often appears between the lines of their writings, that those whom they are so fond of calling "infidels" are people who not only ought to be, but in their hearts are, ashamed of themselves. it would be discourteous to do more than hint the antipodal opposition of this pleasant dream of theirs to facts. the clerics and their lay allies commonly tell us, that if we refuse to admit that there is good ground for expressing definite convictions about certain topics, the bonds of human society will dissolve and mankind lapse into savagery. there are several answers to this assertion. one is that the bonds of human society were formed without the aid of their theology; and, in the opinion of not a few competent judges, have been weakened rather than strengthened by a good deal of it. greek science, greek art, the ethics of old israel, the social organisation of old rome, contrived to come into being, without the help of any one who believed in a single distinctive article of the simplest of the christian creeds. the science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of those of greece and rome--not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world, were alike despicable. again, all that is best in the ethics of the modern world, in so far as it has not grown out of greek thought, or barbarian manhood, is the direct development of the ethics of old israel. there is no code of legislation, ancient or modern, at once so just and so merciful, so tender to the weak and poor, as the jewish law; and, if the gospels are to be trusted, jesus of nazareth himself declared that he taught nothing but that which lay implicitly, or explicitly, in the religious and ethical system of his people. and the scribe said unto him, of a truth, teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he, and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. (mark xii. , .) here is the briefest of summaries of the teaching of the prophets of israel of the eighth century; does the teacher, whose doctrine is thus set forth in his presence, repudiate the exposition? nay; we are told, on the contrary, that jesus saw that he "answered discreetly," and replied, "thou art not far from the kingdom of god." so that i think that even if the creeds, from the so-called "apostles," to the so-called "athanasian," were swept into oblivion; and even if the human race should arrive at the conclusion that, whether a bishop washes a cup or leaves it unwashed, is not a matter of the least consequence, it will get on very well. the causes which have led to the development of morality in mankind, which have guided or impelled us all the way from the savage to the civilised state, will not cease to operate because a number of ecclesiastical hypotheses turn out to be baseless. and, even if the absurd notion that morality is more the child of speculation than of practical necessity and inherited instinct, had any foundation; if all the world is going to thieve, murder, and otherwise misconduct itself as soon as it discovers that certain portions of ancient history are mythical, what is the relevance of such arguments to any one who holds by the agnostic principle? surely, the attempt to cast out beelzebub by the aid of beelzebub is a hopeful procedure as compared to that of preserving morality by the aid of immorality. for i suppose it is admitted that an agnostic may be perfectly sincere, may be competent, and may have studied the question at issue with as much care as his clerical opponents. but, if the agnostic really believes what he says, the "dreadful consequence" argufier (consistently, i admit, with his own principles) virtually asks him to abstain from telling the truth, or to say what he believes to be untrue, because of the supposed injurious consequences to morality. "beloved brethren, that we may be spotlessly moral, before all things let us lie," is the sum total of many an exhortation addressed to the "infidel." now, as i have already pointed out, we cannot oblige our exhorters. we leave the practical application of the convenient doctrines of "reserve" and "non-natural interpretation" to those who invented them. i trust that i have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of fulness, in my previous exposition of that which i hold to be the essence of the agnostic doctrine. henceforward, i might hope to hear no more of the assertion that we are necessarily materialists, idealists, atheists, theists, or any other _ists_, if experience had led me to think that the proved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against its repetition. and those who appreciate the nature of our position will see, at once, that when ecclesiasticism declares that we ought to believe this, that, and the other, and are very wicked if we don't, it is impossible for us to give any answer but this: we have not the slightest objection to believe anything you like, if you will give us good grounds for belief; but, if you cannot, we must respectfully refuse, even if that refusal should wreck mortality and insure our own damnation several times over. we are quite content to leave that to the decision of the future. the course of the past has impressed us with the firm conviction that no good ever comes of falsehood, and we feel warranted in refusing even to experiment in that direction. * * * * * in the course of the present discussion it has been asserted that the "sermon on the mount" and the "lord's prayer" furnish a summary and condensed view of the essentials of the teaching of jesus of nazareth, set forth by himself. now this supposed _summa_ of nazarene theology distinctly affirms the existence of a spiritual world, of a heaven, and of a hell of fire; it teaches the fatherhood of god and the malignity of the devil; it declares the superintending providence of the former and our need of deliverance from the machinations of the latter; it affirms the fact of demoniac possession and the power of casting out devils by the faithful. and from these premises, the conclusion is drawn, that those agnostics who deny that there is any evidence of such a character as to justify certainty, respecting the existence and the nature of the spiritual world, contradict the express declarations of jesus. i have replied to this argumentation by showing that there is strong reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the attribution to jesus of either the "sermon on the mount" or the "lord's prayer"; and, therefore, that the conclusion in question is not warranted, at any rate, on the grounds set forth. but, whether the gospels contain trustworthy statements about this and other alleged historical facts or not, it is quite certain that from them, taken together with the other books of the new testament, we may collect a pretty complete exposition of that theory of the spiritual world which was held by both nazarenes and christians; and which was undoubtedly supposed by them to be fully sanctioned by jesus, though it is just as clear that they did not imagine it contained any revelation by him of something heretofore unknown. if the pneumatological doctrine which pervades the whole new testament is nowhere systematically stated, it is everywhere assumed. the writers of the gospels and of the acts take it for granted, as a matter of common knowledge; and it is easy to gather from these sources a series of propositions, which only need arrangement to form a complete system. in this system, man is considered to be a duality formed of a spiritual element, the soul; and a corporeal[ ] element, the body. and this duality is repeated in the universe, which consists of a corporeal world embraced and interpenetrated by a spiritual world. the former consists of the earth, as its principal and central constituent, with the subsidiary sun, planets, and stars. above the earth is the air, and below is the watery abyss. whether the heaven, which is conceived to be above the air, and the hell in, or below, the subterranean deeps, are to be taken as corporeal or incorporeal is not clear. however this may be, the heaven and the air, the earth and the abyss, are peopled by innumerable beings analogous in nature to the spiritual element in man, and these spirits are of two kinds, good and bad. the chief of the good spirits, infinitely superior to all the others, and their creator, as well as the creator of the corporeal world and of the bad spirits, is god. his residence is heaven, where he is surrounded by the ordered hosts of good spirits; his angels, or messengers, and the executors of his will throughout the universe. on the other hand, the chief of the bad spirits is satan, _the_ devil _par excellence_. he and his company of demons are free to roam through all parts of the universe, except the heaven. these bad spirits are far superior to man in power and subtlety; and their whole energies are devoted to bringing physical and moral evils upon him, and to thwarting, so far as his power goes, the benevolent intentions of the supreme being. in fact, the souls and bodies of men form both the theatre and the prize of an incessant warfare between the good and the evil spirits--the powers of light and the powers of darkness. by leading eve astray, satan brought sin and death upon mankind. as the gods of the heathen, the demons are the founders and maintainers of idolatry; as the "powers of the air" they afflict mankind with pestilence and famine; as "unclean spirits" they cause disease of mind and body. the significance of the appearance of jesus, in the capacity of the messiah, or christ, is the reversal of the satanic work by putting an end to both sin and death. he announces that the kingdom of god is at hand, when the "prince of this world" shall be finally "cast out" (john xii. ) from the cosmos, as jesus, during his earthly career, cast him out from individuals. then will satan and all his devilry, along with the wicked whom they have seduced to their destruction, be hurled into the abyss of unquenchable fire--there to endure continual torture, without a hope of winning pardon from the merciful god, their father; or of moving the glorified messiah to one more act of pitiful intercession; or even of interrupting, by a momentary sympathy with their wretchedness, the harmonious psalmody of their brother angels and men, eternally lapped in bliss unspeakable. the straitest protestant, who refuses to admit the existence of any source of divine truth, except the bible, will not deny that every point of the pneumatological theory here set forth has ample scriptural warranty. the gospels, the acts, the epistles, and the apocalypse assert the existence of the devil, of his demons and of hell, as plainly as they do that of god and his angels and heaven. it is plain that the messianic and the satanic conceptions of the writers of these books are the obverse and the reverse of the same intellectual coinage. if we turn from scripture to the traditions of the fathers and the confessions of the churches, it will appear that, in this one particular, at any rate, time has brought about no important deviation from primitive belief. from justin onwards, it may often be a fair question whether god, or the devil, occupies a larger share of the attention of the fathers. it is the devil who instigates the roman authorities to persecute; the gods and goddesses of paganism are devils, and idolatry itself is an invention of satan; if a saint falls away from grace, it is by the seduction of the demon; if heresy arises, the devil has suggested it; and some of the fathers[ ] go so far as to challenge the pagans to a sort of exorcising match, by way of testing the truth of christianity. mediæval christianity is at one with patristic, on this head. the masses, the clergy, the theologians, and the philosophers alike, live and move and have their being in a world full of demons, in which sorcery and possession are everyday occurrences. nor did the reformation make any difference. whatever else luther assailed, he left the traditional demonology untouched; nor could any one have entertained a more hearty and uncompromising belief in the devil, than he and, at a later period, the calvinistic fanatics of new england did. finally, in these last years of the nineteenth century, the demonological hypotheses of the first century are, explicitly or implicitly, held and occasionally acted upon by the immense majority of christians of all confessions. only here and there has the progress of scientific thought, outside the ecclesiastical world, so far affected christians, that they and their teachers fight shy of the demonology of their creed. they are fain to conceal their real disbelief in one half of christian doctrine by judicious silence about it; or by flight to those refuges for the logically destitute, accommodation or allegory. but the faithful who fly to allegory in order to escape absurdity resemble nothing so much as the sheep in the fable who--to save their lives--jumped into the pit. the allegory pit is too commodious, is ready to swallow up so much more than one wants to put into it. if the story of the temptation is an allegory; if the early recognition of jesus as the son of god by the demons is an allegory; if the plain declaration of the writer of the first epistle of john (iii. ), "to this end was the son of god manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil," is allegorical, then the pauline version of the fall may be allegorical, and still more the words of consecration of the eucharist, or the promise of the second coming; in fact, there is not a dogma of ecclesiastical christianity the scriptural basis of which may not be whittled away by a similar process. as to accommodation, let any honest man who can read the new testament ask himself whether jesus and his immediate friends and disciples can be dishonoured more grossly than by the supposition that they said and did that which is attributed to them; while, in reality, they disbelieved in satan and his demons, in possession and in exorcism?[ ] an eminent theologian has justly observed that we have no right to look at the propositions of the christian faith with one eye open and the other shut. (tract , p. .) it really is not permissible to see, with one eye, that jesus is affirmed to declare the personality and the fatherhood of god, his loving providence and his accessibility to prayer; and to shut the other to the no less definite teaching ascribed to jesus, in regard to the personality and the misanthropy of the devil, his malignant watchfulness, and his subjection to exorcistic formula and rites. jesus is made to say that the devil "was a murderer from the beginning" (john viii. ) by the same authority as that upon which we depend for his asserted declaration that "god is a spirit" (john iv. ). to those who admit the authority of the famous vincentian dictum that the doctrine which has been held "always, everywhere, and by all" is to be received as authoritative, the demonology must possess a higher sanction than any other christian dogma, except, perhaps, those of the resurrection and of the messiahship of jesus; for it would be difficult to name any other points of doctrine on which the nazarene does not differ from the christian, and the different historical stages and contemporary subdivisions of christianity from one another. and, if the demonology is accepted, there can be no reason for rejecting all those miracles in which demons play a part. the gadarene story fits into the general scheme of christianity; and the evidence for "legion" and their doings is just as good as any other in the new testament for the doctrine which the story illustrates. it was with the purpose of bringing this great fact into prominence; of getting people to open both their eyes when they look at ecclesiasticism; that i devoted so much space to that miraculous story which happens to be one of the best types of its class. and i could not wish for a better justification of the course i have adopted, than the fact that my heroically consistent adversary has declared his implicit belief in the gadarene story and (by necessary consequence) in the christian demonology as a whole. it must be obvious, by this time, that, if the account of the spiritual world given in the new testament, professedly on the authority of jesus, is true, then the demonological half of that account must be just as true as the other half. and, therefore, those who question the demonology, or try to explain it away, deny the truth of what jesus said, and are, in ecclesiastical terminology, "infidels" just as much as those who deny the spirituality of god. this is as plain as anything can well be, and the dilemma for my opponent was either to assert that the gadarene pig-bedevilment actually occurred, or to write himself down an "infidel." as was to be expected, he chose the former alternative; and i may express my great satisfaction at finding that there is one spot of common ground on which both he and i stand. so far as i can judge, we are agreed to state one of the broad issues between the consequences of agnostic principles (as i draw them), and the consequences of ecclesiastical dogmatism (as he accepts it), as follows. ecclesiasticism says: the demonology of the gospels is an essential part of that account of that spiritual world, the truth of which it declares to be certified by jesus. agnosticism (_me judice_) says: there is no good evidence of the existence of a demoniac spiritual world, and much reason for doubting it. hereupon the ecclesiastic may observe: your doubt means that you disbelieve jesus; therefore you are an "infidel" instead of an "agnostic." to which the agnostic may reply: no; for two reasons: first, because your evidence that jesus said what you say he said is worth very little; and secondly, because a man may be an agnostic, in the sense of admitting he has no positive knowledge, and yet consider that he has more or less probable ground for accepting any given hypothesis about the spiritual world. just as a man may frankly declare that he has no means of knowing whether the planets generally are inhabited or not, and yet may think one of the two possible hypotheses more likely that the other, so he may admit that he has no means of knowing anything about the spiritual world, and yet may think one or other of the current views on the subject, to some extent, probable. the second answer is so obviously valid that it needs no discussion. i draw attention to it simply in justice to those agnostics who may attach greater value that i do to any sort of pneumatological speculations; and not because i wish to escape the responsibility of declaring that, whether jesus sanctioned the demonological part of christianity or not, i unhesitatingly reject it. the first answer, on the other hand, opens up the whole question of the claim of the biblical and other sources, from which hypotheses concerning the spiritual world are derived, to be regarded as unimpeachable historical evidence as to matters of fact. now, in respect of the trustworthiness of the gospel narratives, i was anxious to get rid of the common assumption that the determination of the authorship and of the dates of these works is a matter of fundamental importance. that assumption is based upon the notion that what contemporary witnesses say must be true, or, at least, has always a _primâ facie_ claim to be so regarded; so that if the writers of any of the gospels were contemporaries of the events (and still more if they were in the position of eye-witnesses) the miracles they narrate must be historically true, and, consequently, the demonology which they involve must be accepted. but the story of the "translation of the blessed martyrs marcellinus and petrus," and the other considerations (to which endless additions might have been made from the fathers and the mediæval writers) set forth in a preceding essay, yield, in my judgment, satisfactory proof that, where the miraculous is concerned, neither considerable intellectual ability, nor undoubted honesty, nor knowledge of the world, nor proved faithfulness as civil historians, nor profound piety, on the part of eye-witnesses and contemporaries, affords any guarantee of the objective truth of their statements, when we know that a firm belief in the miraculous was ingrained in their minds, and was the pre-supposition of their observations and reasonings. therefore, although it be, as i believe, demonstrable that we have no real knowledge of the authorship, or of the date of composition of the gospels, as they have come down to us, and that nothing better than more or less probable guesses can be arrived at on that subject, i have not cared to expend any space on the question. it will be admitted, i suppose; that the authors of the works attributed to matthew, mark, luke, and john, whoever they may be, are personages whose capacity and judgment in the narration of ordinary events are not quite so well certified as those of eginhard; and we have seen what the value of eginhard's evidence is when the miraculous is in question. * * * * * i have been careful to explain that the arguments which i have used in the course of this discussion are not new; that they are historical and have nothing to do with what is commonly called science; and that they are all, to the best of my belief, to be found in the works of theologians of repute. the position which i have taken up, that the evidence in favour of such miracles as those recorded by eginhard, and consequently of mediæval demonology, is quite as good as that in favour of such miracles as the gadarene, and consequently of nazarene demonology, is none of my discovery. its strength was, wittingly or unwittingly, suggested, a century and a half ago, by a theological scholar of eminence; and it has been, if not exactly occupied, yet so fortified with bastions and redoubts by a living ecclesiastical vauban, that, in my judgment, it has been rendered impregnable. in the early part of the last century, the ecclesiastical mind in this country was much exercised by the question, not exactly of miracles, the occurrence of which in biblical times was axiomatic, but by the problem: when did miracles cease? anglican divines were quite sure that no miracles had happened in their day, nor for some time past; they were equally sure that they happened sixteen or seventeen centuries earlier. and it was a vital question for them to determine at what point of time, between this _terminus a quo_ and that _terminus ad quem_, miracles came to an end. the anglicans and the romanists agreed in the assumption that the possession of the gift of miracle-working was _primâ facie_ evidence of the soundness of the faith of the miracle-workers. the supposition that miraculous powers might be wielded by heretics (though it might be supported by high authority) led to consequences too frightful to be entertained by people who were busied in building their dogmatic house on the sands of early church history. if, as the romanists maintained, an unbroken series of genuine miracles adorned the records of their church, throughout the whole of its existence, no anglican could lightly venture to accuse them of doctrinal corruption. hence, the anglicans, who indulged in such accusations, were bound to prove the modern, the mediæval roman, and the later patristic miracles false; and to shut off the wonder-working power from the church at the exact point of time when anglican doctrine ceased and roman doctrine began. with a little adjustment--a squeeze here and a pull there--the christianity of the first three or four centuries might be made to fit, or seem to fit, pretty well into the anglican scheme. so the miracles, from justin say to jerome, might be recognised; while, in later times, the church having become "corrupt"--that is to say, having pursued one and the same line of development further than was pleasing to anglicans--its alleged miracles must needs be shams and impostures. under these circumstances, it may be imagined that the establishment of a scientific frontier between the earlier realm of supposed fact and the later of asserted delusion, had its difficulties; and torrents of theological special pleading about the subject flowed from clerical pens; until that learned and acute anglican divine, conyers middleton, in his "free inquiry," tore the sophistical web they had laboriously woven to pieces, and demonstrated that the miracles of the patristic age, early and late, must stand or fall together, inasmuch as the evidence for the later is just as good as the evidence for the earlier wonders. if the one set are certified by contemporaneous witnesses of high repute, so are the other; and, in point of probability, there is not a pin to choose between the two. that is the solid and irrefragable, result of middleton's contribution to the subject. but the free inquirer's freedom had its limits; and he draws a sharp line of demarcation between the patristic and the new testament miracles--on the professed ground that the accounts of the latter, being inspired, are out of the reach of criticism. a century later, the question was taken up by another divine, middleton's equal in learning and acuteness, and far his superior in subtlety and dialectic skill; who, though an anglican, scorned the name of protestant; and, while yet a churchman, made it his business to parade, with infinite skill, the utter hollowness of the arguments of those of his brother churchmen who dreamed that they could be both anglicans and protestants. the argument of the "essay on the miracles recorded in the ecclesiastical history of the early ages"[ ] by the present [ ] roman cardinal, but then anglican doctor, john henry newman, is compendiously stated by himself in the following passage:-- if the miracles of church history cannot be defended by the arguments of leslie, lyttleton, paley, or douglas, how many of the scripture miracles satisfy their conditions? (p. cvii). and, although the answer is not given in so many words, little doubt is left on the mind of the reader, that, in the mind of the writer, it is: none. in fact, this conclusion is one which cannot be resisted, if the argument in favour of the scripture miracles is based upon that which laymen, whether lawyers, or men of science, or historians, or ordinary men of affairs, call evidence. but there is something really impressive in the magnificent contempt with which, at times, dr. newman sweeps aside alike those who offer and those who demand such evidence. some infidel authors advise us to accept no miracles which would not have a verdict in their favour in a court of justice; that is, they employ against scripture a weapon which protestants would confine to attacks upon the church; as if moral and religious questions required legal proof, and evidence were the test of truth[ ] (p. cvii). "as if evidence were the test of truth"!--although the truth in question is the occurrence, or the non-occurrence, of certain phenomena at a certain time and in a certain place. this sudden revelation of the great gulf fixed between the ecclesiastical and the scientific mind is enough to take away the breath of any one unfamiliar with the clerical organon. as if, one may retort, the assumption that miracles may, or have, served a moral or a religious end, in any way alters the fact that they profess to be historical events, things that actually happened; and, as such, must needs be exactly those subjects about which evidence is appropriate and legal proofs (which are such merely because they afford adequate evidence) may be justly demanded. the gadarene miracle either happened, or it did not. whether the gadarene "question" is moral or religious, or not, has nothing to do with the fact that it is a purely historical question whether the demons said what they are declared to have said, and the devil-possessed pigs did, or did not, rush over the heights bounding the lake of gennesaret on a certain day of a certain year, after a.d. and before a.d. ; for vague and uncertain as new testament chronology is, i suppose it may be assumed that the event in question, if it happened at all, took place during the procuratorship of pilate. if that is not a matter about which evidence ought to be required, and not only legal, but strict scientific proof demanded by sane men who are asked to believe the story--what is? is a reasonable being to be seriously asked to credit statements which, to put the case gently, are not exactly probable, and on the acceptance or rejection of which his whole view of life may depend, without asking for as much "legal" proof as would send an alleged pickpocket to gaol, or as would suffice to prove the validity of a disputed will? "infidel authors" (if, as i am assured, i may answer for them) will decline to waste time on mere darkenings of counsel of this sort; but to those anglicans who accept his premises, dr. newman is a truly formidable antagonist. what, indeed, are they to reply when he puts the very pertinent question:-- whether persons who not merely question, but prejudge the ecclesiastical miracles on the ground of their want of resemblance, whatever that be, to those contained in scripture--as if the almighty could not do in the christian church what he had not already done at the time of its foundation, or under the mosaic covenant--whether such reasoners are not siding with the sceptic, and whether it is not a happy inconsistency by which they continue to believe the scriptures while they reject the church[ ] (p. liii). again, i invite anglican orthodoxy to consider this passage:-- the narrative of the combats of st. anthony with evil spirits, is a development rather than a contradiction of revelation, viz. of such texts as speak of satan being cast out by prayer and fasting. to be shocked, then, at the miracles of ecclesiastical history, or to ridicule them for their strangeness, is no part of a scriptural philosophy (pp. liii-liv). further on, dr. newman declares that it has been admitted that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circumstance between the miracles of scripture and of church history; but this is by no means the case (p. lv) ... specimens are not wanting in the history of the church, of miracles as awful in their character and as momentous in their effects as those which are recorded in scripture. the fire interrupting the rebuilding of the jewish temple, and the death of arius, are instances, in ecclesiastical history, of such solemn events. on the other hand, difficult instances in the scripture history are such as these: the serpent in eden, the ark, jacob's vision for the multiplication of his cattle, the speaking of balaam's ass, the axe swimming at elisha's word, the miracle on the swine, and various instances of prayers or prophecies, in which, as in that of noah's blessing and curse, words which seem the result of private feeling are expressly or virtually ascribed to a divine suggestion (p. lvi). who is to gainsay our ecclesiastical authority here? "infidel authors" might be accused of a wish to ridicule the scripture miracles by putting them on a level with the remarkable story about the fire which stopped the rebuilding of the temple, or that about the death of arius--but dr. newman is above suspicion. the pity is that his list of what he delicately terms "difficult" instances is so short. why omit the manufacture of eve out of adam's rib, on the strict historical accuracy of which the chief argument of the defenders of an iniquitous portion of our present law depends? why leave out the account of the "bene elohim" and their gallantries, on which a large part of the worst practices of the mediæval inquisitors into witchcraft was based? why forget the angel who wrestled with jacob, and, as the account suggests, somewhat over-stepped the bounds of fair play, at the end of the struggle? surely, we must agree with dr. newman that, if all these camels have gone down, it savours of affectation to strain at such gnats as the sudden ailment of arius in the midst of his deadly, if prayerful,[ ] enemies; and the fiery explosion which stopped the julian building operations. though the _words_ of the "conclusion" of the "essay on miracles" may, perhaps, be quoted against me, i may express my satisfaction at finding myself in substantial accordance with a theologian above all suspicion of heterodoxy. with all my heart, i can declare my belief that there is just as good reason for believing in the miraculous slaying of the man who fell short of the athanasian power of affirming contradictories, with respect to the nature of the godhead, as there is for believing in the stories of the serpent and the ark told in genesis, the speaking of balaam's ass in numbers, or the floating of the axe, at elisha's order, in the second book of kings. * * * * * it is one of the peculiarities of a really sound argument that it is susceptible of the fullest development; and that it sometimes leads to conclusions unexpected by those who employ it. to my mind, it is impossible to refuse to follow dr. newman when he extends his reasoning, from the miracles of the patristic and mediæval ages backward in time, as far as miracles are recorded. but, if the rules of logic are valid, i feel compelled to extend the argument forwards to the alleged roman miracles of the present day, which dr. newman might not have admitted, but which cardinal newman may hardly reject. beyond question, there is as good, or perhaps better, evidence for the miracles worked by our lady of lourdes, as there is for the floating of elisha's axe, or the speaking of balaam's ass. but we must go still further; there is a modern system of thaumaturgy and demonology which is just as well certified as the ancient.[ ] veracious, excellent, sometimes learned and acute persons, even philosophers of no mean pretensions, testify to the "levitation" of bodies much heavier than elisha's axe; to the existence of "spirits" who, to the mere tactile sense, have been indistinguishable from flesh and blood; and, occasionally, have wrested with all the vigour of jacob's opponent; yet, further, to the speech, in the language of raps, of spiritual beings, whose discourses, in point of coherence and value, are far inferior to that of balaam's humble but sagacious steed. i have not the smallest doubt that, if these were persecuting times, there is many a worthy "spiritualist" who would cheerfully go to the stake in support of his pneumatological faith; and furnish evidence, after paley's own heart, in proof of the truth of his doctrines. not a few modern divines, doubtless struck by the impossibility of refusing the spiritualist evidence, if the ecclesiastical evidence is accepted, and deprived of any _à priori_ objection by their implicit belief in christian demonology, show themselves ready to take poor sludge seriously, and to believe that he is possessed by other devils than those of need, greed, and vainglory. under these circumstances, it was to be expected, though it is none the less interesting to note the fact, that the arguments of the latest school of "spiritualists" present a wonderful family likeness to those which adorn the subtle disquisitions of the advocate of ecclesiastical miracles of forty years ago. it is unfortunate for the "spiritualists" that, over and over again, celebrated and trusted media, who really, in some respects, call to mind the montanist[ ] and gnostic seers of the second century, are either proved in courts of law to be fraudulent impostors; or, in sheer weariness, as it would seem, of the honest dupes who swear by them, spontaneously confess their long-continued iniquities, as the fox women did the other day in new york.[ ] but, whenever a catastrophe of this kind takes place, the believers are no wise dismayed by it. they freely admit that not only the media, but the spirits whom they summon, are sadly apt to lose sight of the elementary principles of right and wrong; and they triumphantly ask: how does the occurrence of occasional impostures disprove the genuine manifestations (that is to say, all those which have not yet been proved to be impostures or delusions)? and, in this, they unconsciously plagiarise from the churchman, who just as freely admits that many ecclesiastical miracles may have been forged; and asks, with calm contempt, not only of legal proofs, but of common-sense probability, why does it follow that none are to be supposed genuine? i must say, however, that the spiritualists, so far as i know, do not venture to outrage right reason so boldly as the ecclesiastics. they do not sneer at "evidence"; nor repudiate the requirement of legal proofs. in fact, there can be no doubt that the spiritualists produce better evidence for their manifestations than can be shown either for the miraculous death of arius, or for the invention of the cross.[ ] from the "levitation" of the axe at one end of a period of near three thousand years to the "levitation" of sludge & co. at the other end, there is a complete continuity of the miraculous, with every gradation, from the childish to the stupendous, from the gratification of a caprice to the illustration of sublime truth. there is no drawing a line in the series that might be set out of plausibly attested cases of spiritual intervention. if one is true, all may be true; if one is false, all may be false. * * * * * this is, to my mind, the inevitable result of that method of reasoning which is applied to the confutation of protestantism, with so much success, by one of the acutest and subtlest disputants who have ever championed ecclesiasticism--and one cannot put his claims to acuteness and subtlety higher. ... the christianity of history is not protestantism. if ever there were a safe truth it is this.... "to be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant."[ ] i have not a shadow of doubt that these anti-protestant epigrams are profoundly true. but i have as little that, in the same sense, the "christianity of history is not" romanism; and that to be deeper in history is to cease to be a romanist. the reasons which compel my doubts about the compatibility of the roman doctrine, or any other form of catholicism, with history, arise out of exactly the same line of argument as that adopted by dr. newman in the famous essay which i have just cited. if, with one hand, dr. newman has destroyed protestantism, he has annihilated romanism with the other; and the total result of his ambidextral efforts is to shake christianity to its foundations. nor was any one better aware that this must be the inevitable result of his arguments--if the world should refuse to accept roman doctrines and roman miracles--than the writer of tract . dr. newman made his choice and passed over to the roman church half a century ago. some of those who were essentially in harmony with his views preceded, and many followed him. but many remained; and, as the quondam puseyite and present ritualistic party, they are continuing that work of sapping and mining the protestantism of the anglican church which he and his friends so ably commenced. at the present time, they have no little claim to be considered victorious all along the line. i am old enough to recollect the small beginnings of the tractarian party; and i am amazed when i consider the present position of their heirs. their little leaven has leavened if not the whole, yet a very large lump of the anglican church; which is now pretty much of a preparatory school for papistry. so that it really behoves englishmen (who, as i have been informed by high authority, are all legally, members of the state church, if they profess to belong to no other sect) to wake up to what that powerful organization is about, and whither it is tending. on this point, the writings of dr. newman, while he still remained within the anglican fold, are a vast store of the best and the most authoritative information. his doctrines on ecclesiastical miracles and on development are the corner-stones of the tractarian fabric. he believed that his arguments led either romeward, or to what ecclesiastics call "infidelity," and i call agnosticism. i believe that he was quite right in this conviction; but while he chooses the one alternative, i choose the other; as he rejects protestantism on the ground of its incompatibility with history, so, _a fortiori_, i conceive that romanism ought to be rejected; and that an impartial consideration of the evidence must refuse the authority of jesus to anything more than the nazarenism of james and peter and john. and let it not be supposed that this is a mere "infidel" perversion of the facts. no one has more openly and clearly admitted the possibility that they may be fairly interpreted in this way than dr. newman. if, he says, there are texts which seem to show that jesus contemplated the evangelisation of the heathen: ... did not the apostles hear our lord? and what was _their_ impression from what they heard? is it not certain that the apostles did not gather this truth from his teaching? (tract , p. ). he said, "preach the gospel to every creature." these words _need_ have only meant "bring all men to christianity through judaism." make them jews, that they may enjoy christ's privileges, which are lodged in judaism; teach them those rites and ceremonies, circumcision and the like, which hitherto have been dead ordinances, and now are living; and so the apostles seem to have understood them (_ibid_. p. ). so far as nazarenism differentiated itself from contemporary orthodox judaism, it seems to have tended towards a revival of the ethical and religious spirit of the prophetic age, accompanied by the belief in jesus as the messiah, and by various accretions which had grown round judaism subsequently to the exile. to these belong the doctrines of the resurrection, of the last judgment, of heaven and hell; of the hierarchy of good angels; of satan and the hierarchy of evil spirits. and there is very strong ground for believing that all these doctrines, at least in the shapes in which they were held by the post-exilic jews, were derived from persian and babylonian[ ] sources, and are essentially of heathen origin. how far jesus positively sanctioned all these indrainings of circumjacent paganism into judaism; how far any one has a right to declare, that the refusal to accept one or other of these doctrines, as ascertained verities, comes to the same thing as contradicting jesus, it appears to me not easy to say. but it is hardly less difficult to conceive that he could have distinctly negatived any of them; and, more especially, that demonology which has been accepted by the christian churches, in every age and under all their mutual antagonisms. but, i repeat my conviction that, whether jesus sanctioned the demonology of his time and nation or not, it is doomed. the future of christianity, as a dogmatic system and apart from the old israelitish ethics which it has appropriated and developed, lies in the answer which mankind will eventually give to the question, whether they are prepared to believe such stories as the gadarene and the pneumatological hypotheses which go with it, or not. my belief is they will decline to do anything of the sort, whenever and wherever their minds have been disciplined by science. and that discipline must, and will, at once follow and lead the footsteps of advancing civilisation. the preceding pages were written before i became acquainted with the contents of the may number of the "nineteenth century," wherein i discover many things which are decidedly not to my advantage. it would appear that "evasion" is my chief resource, "incapacity for strict argument" and "rottenness of ratiocination" my main mental characteristics, and that it is "barely credible" that a statement which i profess to make of my own knowledge is true. all which things i notice, merely to illustrate the great truth, forced on me by long experience, that it is only from those who enjoy the blessing of a firm hold of the christian faith that such manifestations of meekness, patience, and charity are to be expected. i had imagined that no one who had read my preceding papers, could entertain a doubt as to my position in respect of the main issue, as it has been stated and restated by my opponent: an agnosticism which knows nothing of the relation of man to god must not only refuse belief to our lord's most undoubted teaching, but must deny the reality of the spiritual convictions in which he lived.[ ] that is said to be "the simple question which is at issue between us," and the three testimonies to that teaching and those convictions selected are the sermon on the mount, the lord's prayer, and the story of the passion. my answer, reduced to its briefest form, has been: in the first place, the evidence is such that the exact nature of the teachings and the convictions of jesus is extremely uncertain; so that what ecclesiastics are pleased to call a denial of them may be nothing of the kind. and, in the second place, if jesus taught the demonological system involved in the gadarene story--if a belief in that system formed a part of the spiritual convictions in which he lived and died--then i, for my part, unhesitatingly refuse belief in that teaching, and deny the reality of those spiritual convictions. and i go further and add, that, exactly in so far as it can be proved that jesus sanctioned the essentially pagan demonological theories current among the jews of his age, exactly in so far, for me, will his authority in any matter touching the spiritual world be weakened. with respect to the first half of my answer, i have pointed out that the sermon on the mount, as given in the first gospel, is, in the opinion of the best critics, a "mosaic work" of materials derived from different sources, and i do not understand that this statement is challenged. the only other gospel--the third--which contains something like it, makes, not only the discourse, but the circumstances under which it was delivered, very different. now, it is one thing to say that there was something real at the bottom of the two discourses--which is quite possible; and another to affirm that we have any right to say what that something was, or to fix upon any particular phrase and declare it to be a genuine utterance. those who pursue theology as a science, and bring to the study an adequate knowledge of the ways of ancient historians, will find no difficulty in providing illustrations of my meaning. i may supply one which has come within range of my own limited vision. in josephus's "history of the wars of the jews" (chap, xix.), that writer reports a speech which he says herod made at the opening of a war with the arabians. it is in the first person, and would naturally be supposed by the reader to be intended for a true version of what herod said. in the "antiquities," written some seventeen years later, the same writer gives another report, also in the first person, of herod's speech on the same occasion. this second oration is twice as long as the first and, though the general tenor of the two speeches is pretty much the same, there is hardly any verbal identity, and a good deal of matter is introduced into the one, which is absent from the other. josephus prides himself on his accuracy; people whose fathers might have heard herod's oration were his contemporaries; and yet his historical sense is so curiously undeveloped that he can, quite innocently, perpetrate an obvious literary fabrication; for one of the two accounts must be incorrect. now, if i am asked whether i believe that herod made some particular statement on this occasion; whether, for example, he uttered the pious aphorism, "where god is, there is both multitude and courage," which is given in the "antiquities," but not in the "wars," i am compelled to say i do not know. one of the two reports must be erroneous, possibly both are: at any rate, i cannot tell how much of either is true. and, if some fervent admirer of the idumean should build up a theory of herod's piety upon josephus's evidence that he propounded the aphorism, it is a "mere evasion" to say, in reply, that the evidence that he did utter it is worthless? it appears again that, adopting the tactics of conachar when brought face to face with hal o' the wynd, i have been trying to get my simple-minded adversary to follow me on a wild-goose chase through the early history of christianity, in the hope of escaping impending defeat on the main issue. but i may be permitted to point out that there is an alternative hypothesis which equally fits the facts; and that, after all, there may have been method in the madness of my supposed panic. for suppose it to be established that gentile christianity was a totally different thing from the nazarenism of jesus and his immediate disciples; suppose it to be demonstrable that, as early as the sixth decade of our era at least, there were violent divergencies of opinion among the followers of jesus; suppose it to be hardly doubtful that the gospels and the acts took their present shapes under the influence of those divergencies; suppose that their authors, and those through whose hands they passed, had notions of historical veracity not more eccentric than those which josephus occasionally displays: surely the chances that the gospels are altogether trustworthy records of the teachings of jesus become very slender. and, since the whole of the case of the other side is based on the supposition that they are accurate records (especially of speeches, about which ancient historians are so curiously loose), i really do venture to submit that this part of my argument bears very seriously on the main issue; and, as ratiocination, is sound to the core. again, when i passed by the topic of the speeches of jesus on the cross, it appears that i could have had no other motive than the dictates of my native evasiveness. an ecclesiastical dignitary may have respectable reasons for declining a fencing match "in sight of gethsemane and calvary"; but an ecclesiastical "infidel"! never. it is obviously impossible that in the belief that "the greater includes the less," i, having declared the gospel evidence in general, as to the sayings of jesus, to be of questionable value, thought it needless to select for illustration of my views, those particular instances which were likely to be most offensive to persons of another way of thinking. but any supposition that may have been entertained that the old familiar tones of the ecclesiastical war-drum will tempt me to engage in such needless discussion had better be renounced. i shall do nothing of the kind. let it suffice that i ask my readers to turn to the twenty-third chapter of luke (revised version), verse thirty-four, and he will find in the margin some ancient authorities omit: and jesus said "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." so that, even as late as the fourth century, there were ancient authorities, indeed some of the most ancient and weightiest, who either did not know of this utterance, so often quoted as characteristic of jesus, or did not believe it had been uttered. many years ago, i received an anonymous letter, which abused me heartily for my want of moral courage in not speaking out. i thought that one of the oddest charges an anonymous letter-writer could bring. but i am not sure that the plentiful sowing of the pages of the article with which i am dealing with accusations of evasion, may not seem odder to those who consider that the main strength of the answers with which i have been favoured (in this review and elsewhere) is devoted not to anything in the text of my first paper, but to a note which occurs at p. . in this i say: dr. wace tells us: "it may be asked how far we can rely on the accounts we possess of our lord's teaching on these subjects." and he seems to think the question appropriately answered by the assertion that it "ought to be regarded as settled by m. renan's practical surrender of the adverse case." i requested dr. wace to point out the passages of m. renan's works in which, as he affirms, this "practical surrender" (not merely as to the age and authorship of the gospels, be it observed, but as to their historical value) is made, and he has been so good as to do so. now let us consider the parts of dr. wace's citation from renan which are relevant to the issue:-- the author of this gospel [luke] is certainly the same as the author of the acts of the apostles. now the author of the acts seems to be a companion of st. paul--a character which accords completely with st. luke. i know that more than one objection may be opposed to this reasoning: but one thing, at all events, is beyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third gospel and of the acts is a man who belonged to the second apostolic generation; and this suffices for our purpose. this is a curious "practical surrender of the adverse case." m. renan thinks that there is no doubt that the author of the third gospel is the author of the acts--a conclusion in which i suppose critics generally agree. he goes on to remark that this person _seems_ to be a companion of st. paul, and adds that luke was a companion of st. paul. then, somewhat needlessly, m. renan points out that there is more than one objection to jumping, from such data as these, to the conclusion that "luke" is the writer of the third gospel. and, finally, m. renan is content to reduce that which is "beyond doubt" to the fact that the author of the two books is a man of the second apostolic generation. well, it seems to me that i could agree with all that m. renan considers "beyond doubt" here, without surrendering anything, either "practically" or theoretically. dr. wace ("nineteenth century," march, p. ) states that he derives the above citation from the preface to the th edition of the "vie de jésus." my copy of "les Évangiles," dated , contains a list of renan's "oeuvres complètes," at the head of which i find "vie de jésus," ^e édition. it is, therefore, a later work than the edition of the "vie de jésus" which dr. wace quotes. now "les Évangiles," as its name implies, treats fully of the questions respecting the date and authorship of the gospels; and any one who desired, not merely to use m. renan's expressions for controversial purposes, but to give a fair account of his views in their full significance, would, i think, refer to the later source. if this course had been taken, dr. wace might have found some as decided expressions of opinion, in favour of luke's authorship of the third gospel, as he has discovered in "the apostles." i mention this circumstance, because i desire to point out that, taking even the strongest of renan's statements, i am still at a loss to see how it justifies that large-sounding phrase, "practical surrender of the adverse case." for, on p. of "les Évangiles," renan speaks of the way in which luke's "excellent intentions" have led him to torture history in the acts; he declares luke to be the founder of that "eternal fiction which is called ecclesiastical history"; and, on the preceding page, he talks of the "myth" of the ascension--with its "_mise en scène voulue_." at p. , i find "luc, ou l'auteur quel qu'il soit du troisième Évangile"; at p. , the accounts of the passion, the death and the resurrection of jesus, are said to be "peu historiques"; at p. , "la valeur historique du troisième Évangile est sûrement moindre que celles des deux premiers." a pyrrhic sort of victory for orthodoxy, this "surrender"! and, all the while, the scientific student of theology knows that, the more reason there may be to believe that luke was the companion of paul, the more doubtful becomes his credibility if he really wrote the acts. for, in that case, he could not fail to have been acquainted with paul's account of the jerusalem conference and he must have consciously misrepresented it. we may next turn to the essential part of dr. wace's citation ("nineteenth century," p. ) touching the first gospel:-- st. matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the discourses. here are the "oracles"--the very notes taken while the memory of the instruction of jesus was living and definite. m. renan here expresses the very general opinion as to the existence of a collection of "logia," having a different origin from the text in which they are embedded, in matthew. "notes" are somewhat suggestive of a shorthand writer, but the suggestion is unintentional, for m. renan assumes that these "notes" were taken, not at the time of the delivery of the "logia" but subsequently, while (as he assumes) the memory of them was living and definite; so that, in this very citation, m. renan leaves open the question of the general historical value of the first gospel; while it is obvious that the accuracy of "notes" taken, not at the time of delivery, but from memory, is a matter about which more than one opinion may be fairly held. moreover, renan expressly calls attention to the difficulty of distinguishing the authentic "logia" from later additions of the same kind ("les Évangiles," p. ). the fact is, there is no contradiction here to that opinion about the first gospel which is expressed in "les Évangiles" (p. ). the text of the so-called matthew supposes the pre-existence of that of mark, and does little more than complete it. he completes it in two fashions--first, by the insertion of those long discourses which gave their chief value to the hebrew gospels; then by adding traditions of a more modern formation, results of successive developments of the legend, and to which the christian consciousness already attached infinite value. m. renan goes on to suggest that besides "mark," "pseudo-matthew" used an aramaic version of the gospel, originally set forth in that dialect. finally, as to the second gospel ("nineteenth century," p. ):-- he [mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond doubt, from an eye-witness. there is nothing to conflict with the supposition that this eye-witness ... was the apostle peter himself, as papias has it. let us consider this citation by the light of "les Évangiles":-- this work, although composed after the death of peter, was, in a sense, the work of peter; it represents the way in which peter was accustomed to relate the life of jesus (p. ). m. renan goes on to say that, as an historical document, the gospel of mark has a great superiority (p. ); but mark has a motive for omitting the discourses, and he attaches a "puerile importance" to miracles (p. ). the gospel of mark is less a legend, than a biography written with credulity (p. ). it would be rash to say that mark has not been interpolated and retouched (p. ). if any one thinks that i have not been warranted in drawing a sharp distinction between "scientific theologians" and "counsels for creeds"; or that my warning against the too ready acceptance of certain declarations as to the state of biblical criticism was needless; or that my anxiety as to the sense of the word "practical" was superfluous; let him compare the statement that m. renan has made a "practical surrender of the adverse case" with the facts just set forth. for what is the adverse case? the question, as dr. wace puts it, is, "it may be asked how far can we rely on the accounts we possess of our lord's teaching on these subjects." it will be obvious that m. renan's statements amount to an adverse answer--to a "practical" denial that any great reliance can be placed on these accounts. he does not believe that matthew, the apostle, wrote the first gospel; he does not profess to know who is responsible for the collection of "logia," or how many of them are authentic; though he calls the second gospel the most historical, he points out that it is written with credulity, and may have been interpolated and retouched; and, as to the author, "quel qu'il soit," of the third gospel, who is to "rely on the accounts" of a writer, who deserves the cavalier treatment which "luke" meets with at m. renan's hands. i repeat what i have already more than once said, that the question of the age and the authorship of the gospels has not, in my judgment, the importance which is so commonly assigned to it; for the simple reason that the reports, even of eye-witnesses, would not suffice to justify belief in a large and essential part of their contents; on the contrary, these reports would discredit the witnesses. the gadarene miracle, for example, is so extremely improbable, that the fact of its being reported by three, even independent, authorities could not justify belief in it, unless we had the clearest evidence as to their capacity as observers and as interpreters of their observations. but it is evident that the three authorities are not independent; that they have simply adopted a legend, of which there were two versions; and instead of their proving its truth, it suggests their superstitious credulity: so that if "matthew," "mark," and "luke" are really responsible for the gospels, it is not the better for the gadarene story, but the worse for them. a wonderful amount of controversial capital has been made out of my assertion in the note to which i have referred, as an _obiter dictum_ of no consequence to my argument, that if renan's work[ ] were non-extant, the main results of biblical criticism, as set forth in the works of strauss, baur, reuss, and volkmar, for example, would not be sensibly affected. i thought i had explained it satisfactorily already, but it seems that my explanation has only exhibited still more of my native perversity, so i ask for one more chance. in the course of the historical development of any branch of science, what is universally observed is this: that the men who make epochs, and are the real architects of the fabric of exact knowledge, are those who introduce fruitful ideas or methods. as a rule, the man who does this pushes his idea, or his method, too far; or, if he does not, his school is sure to do so; and those who follow have to reduce his work to its proper value, and assign it its place in the whole. not unfrequently, they, in their turn, overdo the critical process, and, in trying to eliminate error, throw away truth. thus, as i said, linnæus, buffon, cuvier, lamarck, really "set forth the results" of a developing science, although they often heartily contradict one another. notwithstanding this circumstance, modern classificatory method and nomenclature have largely grown out of the work of linnæus; the modern conception of biology, as a science, and of its relation to climatology, geography, and geology, are, as largely, rooted in the results of the labours of buffon; comparative anatomy and palæontology owe a vast debt to cuvier's results; while invertebrate zoology and the revival of the idea of evolution are intimately dependent on the results of the work of lamarck. in other words, the main results of biology up to the early years of this century are to be found in, or spring out of, the works of these men. so, if i mistake not, strauss, if he did not originate the idea of taking the mythopoeic faculty into account in the development of the gospel narratives, and though he may have exaggerated the influence of that faculty, obliged scientific theology, hereafter, to take that element into serious consideration; so baur, in giving prominence to the cardinal fact of the divergence of the nazarene and pauline tendencies in the primitive church; so reuss, in setting a marvellous example of the cool and dispassionate application of the principles of scientific criticism over the whole field of scripture; so volkmar, in his clear and forcible statement of the nazarene limitations of jesus, contributed results of permanent value in scientific theology. i took these names as they occurred to me. undoubtedly, i might have advantageously added to them; perhaps, i might have made a better selection. but it really is absurd to try to make out that i did not know that these writers widely disagree; and i believe that no scientific theologian will deny that, in principle, what i have said is perfectly correct. ecclesiastical advocates, of course, cannot be expected to take this view of the matter. to them, these mere seekers after truth, in so far as their results are unfavourable to the creed the clerics have to support, are more or less "infidels," or favourers of "infidelity"; and the only thing they care to see, or probably can see, is the fact that, in a great many matters, the truth-seekers differ from one another, and therefore can easily be exhibited to the public, as if they did nothing else; as if any one who referred to their having, each and all, contributed his share to the results of theological science, was merely showing his ignorance; and as if a charge of inconsistency could be based on the fact that he himself often disagrees with what they say. i have never lent a shadow of foundation to the assumption that i am a follower of either strauss, or baur, or reuss, or volkmar, or renan; my debts to these eminent men--so far my superiors in theological knowledge--is, indeed, great; yet it is not for their opinions, but for those i have been able to form for myself, by their help. in _agnosticism: a rejoinder_ (p. ), i have referred to the difficulties under which those professors of the science of theology, whose tenure of their posts depends on the results of their investigations, must labour; and, in a note, i add-- imagine that all our chairs of astronomy had been founded in the fourteenth century, and that their incumbents were bound to sign ptolemaic articles. in that case, with every respect for the efforts of persons thus hampered to attain and expound the truth, i think men of common sense would go elsewhere to learn astronomy. i did not write this paragraph without a knowledge that its sense would be open to the kind of perversion which it has suffered; but, if that was clear, the necessity for the statement was still clearer. it is my deliberate opinion: i reiterate it; and i say that, in my judgment, it is extremely inexpedient that any subject which calls itself a science should be intrusted to teachers who are debarred from freely following out scientific methods to their legitimate conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be. if i may borrow a phrase paraded at the church congress, i think it "ought to be unpleasant" for any man of science to find himself in the position of such a teacher. human nature is not altered by seating it in a professorial chair, even of theology. i have very little doubt that if, in the year , the tenure of my office had depended upon my adherence to the doctrines of cuvier, the objections to them set forth in the "origin of species" would have had a halo of gravity about them that, being free to teach what i pleased, i failed to discover. and, in making that statement, it does not appear to me that i am confessing that i should have been debarred by "selfish interests" from making candid inquiry, or that i should have been biassed by "sordid motives." i hope that even such a fragment of moral sense as may remain in an ecclesiastical "infidel" might have got me through the difficulty; but it would be unworthy to deny, or disguise, the fact that a very serious difficulty must have been created for me by the nature of my tenure. and let it be observed that the temptation, in my case, would have been far slighter than in that of a professor of theology; whatever biological doctrine i had repudiated, nobody i cared for would have thought the worse of me for so doing. no scientific journals would have howled me down, as the religious newspapers howled down my too honest friend, the late bishop of natal; nor would my colleagues of the royal society have turned their backs upon me, as his episcopal colleagues boycotted him. i say these facts are obvious, and that it is wholesome and needful that they should be stated. it is in the interests of theology, if it be a science, and it is in the interests of those teachers of theology who desire to be something better than counsel for creeds, that it should be taken to heart. the seeker after theological truth and that only, will no more suppose that i have insulted him, than the prisoner who works in fetters will try to pick a quarrel with me, if i suggest that he would get on better if the fetters were knocked off: unless indeed, as it is said does happen in the course of long captivities, that the victim at length ceases to feel the weight of his chains, or even takes to hugging them, as if they were honourable ornaments.[ ] footnotes: [ ] the substance of a paragraph which precedes this has been transferred to the prologue. [ ] i confess that, long ago, i once or twice made this mistake; even to the waste of a capital 'u.' . [ ] "let us maintain, before we have proved. this seeming paradox is the secret of happiness" (dr. newman: tract , p. ). [ ] dr. newman, _essay on development_, p. . [ ] it is by no means to be assumed that "spiritual" and "corporeal" are exact equivalents of "immaterial" and "material" in the minds of ancient speculators on these topics. the "spiritual body" of the risen dead ( cor. xv.) is not the "natural" "flesh and blood" body. paul does not teach the resurrection of the body in the ordinary sense of the word "body"; a fact, often overlooked, but pregnant with many consequences. [ ] tertullian (_apolog. adv. gentes_, cap. xxiii) thus challenges the roman authorities: let them bring a possessed person into the presence of a christian before their tribunal, and if the demon does not confess himself to be such, on the order of the christian, let the christian be executed out of hand. [ ] see the expression of orthodox opinion upon the "accommodation" subterfuge already cited above, p. . [ ] i quote the first edition ( ). a second edition appeared in . tract of the _tracts for the times_ should be read with this _essay_. if i were called upon to compile a primer of "infidelity," i think i should save myself trouble by making a selection from these works, and from the _essay on development_ by the same author. [ ] yet, when it suits his purpose, as in the introduction to the _essay on development_, dr. newman can demand strict evidence in religious questions as sharply as any "infidel author;" and he can even profess to yield to its force (_essay on miracles_, ; note, p. ). [ ] compare tract , p. ; "i am persuaded that were men but consistent who oppose the church doctrines as being unscriptural, they would vindicate the jews for rejecting the gospel." [ ] according to dr. newman, "this prayer [that of bishop alexander, who begged god to 'take arius away'] is said to have been offered about p.m. on the saturday; that same evening arius was in the great square of constantine, when he was suddenly seized with indisposition" (p. clxx). the "infidel" gibbon seems to have dared to suggest that "an option between poison and miracle" is presented by this case; and it must be admitted, that, if the bishop had been within the reach of a modern police magistrate, things might have gone hardly with him. modern "infidels," possessed of a slight knowledge of chemistry, are not unlikely, with no less audacity, to suggest an "option between fire-damp and miracle" in seeking for the cause of the fiery outburst at jerusalem. [ ] a writer in a spiritualist journal takes me roundly to task for venturing to doubt the historical and literal truth of the gadarene story. the following passage in his letter is worth quotation: "now to the materialistic and scientific mind, to the uninitiated in spiritual verities, certainly this story of the gadarene or gergesene swine presents insurmountable difficulties; it seems grotesque and nonsensical. to the experienced, trained, and cultivated spiritualist this miracle is, as i am prepared to show, one of the most instructive, the most profoundly useful, and the most beneficent which jesus ever wrought in the whole course of his pilgrimage of redemption on earth." just so. and the first page of this same journal presents the following advertisement, among others of the same kidney: "to wealthy spiritualists--a lady medium of tried power wishes to meet with an elderly gentleman who would be willing to give her a comfortable home and maintenance in exchange for her spiritualistic services, as her guides consider her health is too delicate for public sittings: london preferred.--address 'mary,' office of _light_." are we going back to the days of the judges, when wealthy micah set up his private ephod, teraphim, and levite? [ ] consider tertullian's "sister" ("hodie apud nos"), who conversed with angels, saw and heard mysteries, knew men's thoughts, and prescribed medicine for their bodies (_de anima_, cap. ). tertullian tells us that this woman saw the soul as corporeal, and described its colour and shape. the "infidel" will probably be unable to refrain from insulting the memory of the ecstatic saint by the remark, that tertullian's known views about the corporeality of the soul may have had something to do with the remarkable perceptive powers of the montanist medium, in whose revelations of the spiritual world he took such profound interest. [ ] see the new york _world_ for sunday, st october, ; and the _report of the seybert commission_, philadelphia, . [ ] dr. newman's observation that the miraculous multiplication of the pieces of the true cross (with which "the whole world is filled," according to cyril of jerusalem; and of which some say there are enough extant to build a man-of-war) is no more wonderful than that of the loaves and fishes, is one that i do not see my way to contradict. see _essay on miracles_. d ed. p. . [ ] _an essay on the development of christian doctrine_, by j.h. newman, d.d., pp. and . ( .) [ ] dr. newman faces this question with his customary ability. "now, i own, i am not at all solicitous to deny that this doctrine of an apostate angel and his hosts was gained from babylon: it might still be divine nevertheless. god who made the prophet's ass speak, and thereby instructed the prophet, might instruct his church by means of heathen babylon" (tract , p. ). there seems to be no end to the apologetic burden that balaam's ass may carry. [ ] _nineteenth century_, may (p. ). [ ] i trust it may not be supposed that i undervalue m. renan's labours, or intended to speak slightingly of them. [ ] to-day's _times_ contains a report of a remarkable speech by prince bismarck, in which he tells the reichstag that he has long given up investing in foreign stock, lest so doing should mislead his judgment in his transactions with foreign states. does this declaration prove that the chancellor accuses himself of being "sordid" and "selfish"; or does it not rather show that, even in dealing with himself, he remains the man of realities? x: the keepers of the herd of swine [ ] i had fondly hoped that mr. gladstone and i had come to an end of disputation, and that the hatchet of war was finally superseded by the calumet, which, as mr. gladstone, i believe, objects to tobacco, i was quite willing to smoke for both. but i have had, once again, to discover that the adage that whoso seeks peace will ensue it, is a somewhat hasty generalisation. the renowned warrior with whom it is my misfortune to be opposed in most things has dug up the axe and is on the war-path once more. the weapon has been wielded with all the dexterity which long practice has conferred on a past master in craft, whether of wood or state. and i have reason to believe that the simpler sort of the great tribe which he heads, imagine that my scalp is already on its way to adorn their big chief's wigwam. i am glad therefore to be able to relieve any anxieties which my friends may entertain without delay. i assure them that my skull retains its normal covering, and that though, naturally, i may have felt alarmed, nothing serious has happened. my doughty adversary has merely performed a war dance, and his blows have for the most part cut the air. i regret to add, however, that by misadventure, and i am afraid i must say carelessness, he has inflicted one or two severe contusions on himself. when the noise of approaching battle roused me from the dreams of peace which occupy my retirement, i was glad to observe (since i must fight) that the campaign was to be opened upon a new field. when the contest raged over the pentateuchal myth of the creation, mr. gladstone's manifest want of acquaintance with the facts and principles involved in the discussion, no less than with the best literature on his own side of the subject, gave me the uncomfortable feeling that i had my adversary at a disadvantage. the sun of science, at my back, was in his eyes. but, on the present occasion, we are happily on an equality. history and biblical criticism are as much, or as little, my vocation as they are that of mr. gladstone; the blinding from too much light, or the blindness from too little, may be presumed to be equally shared by both of us. mr. gladstone takes up his new position in the country of the gadarenes. his strategic sense justly leads him to see that the authority of the teachings of the synoptic gospels, touching the nature of the spiritual world, turns upon the acceptance, or the rejection, of the gadarene and other like stories. as we accept, or repudiate, such histories as that of the possessed pigs, so shall we accept, or reject, the witness of the synoptics to such miraculous interventions. it is exactly because these stories constitute the key-stone of the orthodox arch, that i originally drew attention to them; and, in spite of my longing for peace, i am truly obliged to mr. gladstone for compelling me to place my case before the public once more. it may be thought that this is a work of supererogation by those who are aware that my essay is the subject of attack in a work so largely circulated as the "impregnable rock of holy scripture"; and who may possibly, in their simplicity, assume that it must be truthfully set forth in that work. but the warmest admirers of mr. gladstone will hardly be prepared to maintain that mathematical accuracy in stating the opinions of an opponent is the most prominent feature of his controversial method. and what follows will show that, in the present case, the desire to be fair and accurate, the existence of which i am bound to assume, has not borne as much fruit as might have been expected. in referring to the statement of the narrators, that the herd of swine perished in consequence of the entrance into them of the demons by the permission, or order, of jesus of nazareth, i said: "everything that i know of law and justice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanour of evil example" ("nineteenth century," february, , p. ). mr. gladstone has not found it convenient to cite this passage; and, in view of various considerations, i dare not assume that he would assent to it, without sundry subtle modifications which, for me, might possibly rob it of its argumentative value. but, until the proposition is seriously controverted, i shall assume it to be true, and content myself with warning the reader that neither he nor i have any grounds for assuming mr. gladstone's concurrence. with this caution, i proceed to remark that i think it may be granted that the people whose herd of swine (more or fewer) was suddenly destroyed suffered great loss and damage. and it is quite certain that the narrators of the gadarene story do not, in any way, refer to the point of morality and legality thus raised; as i said, they show no inkling of the moral and legal difficulties which arise. such being the facts of the case, i submit that for those who admit the principle laid down, the conclusion which i have drawn necessarily follows; though i repeat that, since mr. gladstone does not explicitly admit the principle, i am far from suggesting that he is bound by its logical consequences. however, i distinctly reiterate the opinion that any one who acted in the way described in the story would, in my judgment, be guilty of "a misdemeanour of evil example." about that point i desire to leave no ambiguity whatever; and it follows that, if i believed the story, i should have no hesitation in applying this judgment to the chief actor in it. but, if any one will do me the favour to turn to the paper in which these passages occur, he will find that a considerable part of it is devoted to the exposure of the familiar trick of the "counsel for creeds," who, when they wish to profit by the easily stirred _odium theologicum_, are careful to confuse disbelief in a narrative of a man's act, or disapproval of the acts as narrated, with disbelieving and vilipending the man himself. if i say that "according to paragraphs in several newspapers, my valued separatist friend a.b. has houghed a lot of cattle, which he considered to be unlawfully in the possession of an irish land-grabber; that, in my opinion, any such act is a misdemeanour of evil example; but, that i utterly disbelieve the whole story and have no doubt that it is a mere fabrication:" it really appears to me that, if any one charges me with calling a.b. an immoral misdemeanant i should be justified in using very strong language respecting either his sanity or his veracity. and, if an analogous charge has been brought in reference to the gadarene story, there is certainly no excuse producible, on account of any lack of plain speech on my part. surely no language can be more explicit than that which follows: "i can discern no escape from this dilemma; either jesus said what he is reported to have said, or he did not. in the former case, it is inevitable that his authority on matters connected with the 'unseen world' should be roughly shaken; in the latter, the blow falls upon the authority of the synoptic gospels" (p. ). "the choice then lies between discrediting those who compiled the gospel biographies and disbelieving the master, whom they, simple souls, thought to honour by preserving such traditions of the exercise of his authority over satan's invisible world" (p. ). and i leave no shadow of doubt as to my own choice: "after what has been said, i do not think that any sensible man, unless he happen to be angry, will accuse me of 'contradicting the lord and his apostles' if i reiterate my total disbelief in the whole gadarene story" (p. ). i am afraid, therefore, that mr. gladstone must have been exceedingly angry when he committed himself to such a statement as follows: so, then, after eighteen centuries of worship offered to our lord by the most cultivated, the most developed, and the most progressive portion of the human race, it has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that he was no better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer.... how, in such a matter, came the honours of originality to be reserved to our time and to professor huxley? (pp. , .) truly, the hatchet is hardly a weapon of precision, but would seem to have rather more the character of the boomerang, which returns to damage the reckless thrower. doubtless such incidents are somewhat ludicrous. but they have a very serious side; and, if i rated the opinion of those who blindly follow mr. gladstone's leading, but not light, in these matters, much higher than the great duke of wellington's famous standard of minimum value, i think i might fairly beg them to reflect upon the general bearings of this particular example of his controversial method. i imagine it can hardly commend itself to their cool judgment. after this tragi-comical ending to what an old historian calls a "robustious and rough coming on"; and after some praises of the provisions of the mosaic law in the matter of not eating pork--in which, as pork disagrees with me and for some other reasons, i am much disposed to concur, though i do not see what they have to do with the matter in hand--comes the serious onslaught. mr. huxley, exercising his rapid judgment on the text, does not appear to have encumbered himself with the labour of inquiring what anybody else had known or said about it. he has thus missed a point which might have been set up in support of his accusation against our lord. (p. .) unhappily for my conduct, i have been much exercised in controversy during the past thirty years; and the only compensation for the loss of time and the trials of temper which it has inflicted upon me, is that i have come to regard it as a branch of the fine arts, and to take an impartial and æsthetic interest in the way in which it is conducted, even by those whose efforts are directed against myself. now, from the purely artistic point of view (which, as we are all being told, has nothing to do with morals), i consider it an axiom, that one should never appear to doubt that the other side has performed the elementary duty of acquiring proper elementary information, unless there is demonstrative evidence to the contrary. and i think, though i admit that this may be a purely subjective appreciation, that (unless you are quite certain) there is a "want of finish," as a great master of disputation once put it, about the suggestion that your opponent has missed a point on his own side. because it may happen that he has not missed it at all, but only thought it unworthy of serious notice. and if he proves that, the suggestion looks foolish. merely noting the careful repetition of a charge, the absurdity of which has been sufficiently exposed above, i now ask my readers to accompany me on a little voyage of discovery in search of the side on which the rapid judgment and the ignorance of the literature of the subject lie. i think i may promise them very little trouble, and a good deal of entertainment. mr. gladstone is of opinion that the gadarene swinefolk were "hebrews bound by the mosaic law" (p. ); and he conceives that it has not occurred to me to learn what may be said in favour of and against this view. he tells us that some commentators have alleged the authority of josephus for stating that gadara was a city of greeks rather than of jews, from whence it might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful. (p. .) mr. gladstone then goes on to inform his readers that in his painstaking search after truth he has submitted to the labour of personally examining the writings of josephus. moreover, in a note, he positively exhibits an acquaintance, in addition, with the works of bishop wordsworth and of archbishop trench; and even shows that he has read hudson's commentary on josephus. and yet people say that our biblical critics do not equal the germans in research! but mr. gladstone's citation of cuvier and sir john herschel about the creation myth, and his ignorance of all the best modern writings on his own side, produced a great impression on my mind. i have had the audacity to suspect that his acquaintance with what has been done in biblical history might stand at no higher level than his information about the natural sciences. however unwillingly, i have felt bound to consider the possibility that mr. gladstone's labours in this matter may have carried him no further than josephus and the worthy, but somewhat antique, episcopal and other authorities to whom he refers; that even his reading of josephus may have been of the most cursory nature, directed not to the understanding of his author, but to the discovery of useful controversial matter; and that, in view of the not inconsiderable misrepresentation of my statements to which i have drawn attention, it might be that mr. gladstone's exposition of the evidence of josephus was not more trustworthy. i proceed to show that my previsions have been fully justified. i doubt if controversial literature contains anything more _piquant_ than the story i have to unfold. that i should be reproved for rapidity of judgment is very just; however quaint the situation of mr. gladstone, as the reprover, may seem to people blessed with a sense of humour. but it is a quality, the defects of which have been painfully obvious to me all my life; and i try to keep my pegasus--at best, a poor shetland variety of that species of quadruped--at a respectable jog-trot, by loading him heavily with bales of reading. those who took the trouble to study my paper in good faith and not for mere controversial purposes, have a right to know, that something more than a hasty glimpse of two or three passages of josephus (even with as many episcopal works thrown in) lay at the back of the few paragraphs i devoted to the gadarene story. i proceed to set forth, as briefly as i can, some results of that preparatory work. my artistic principles do not permit me, at present, to express a doubt that mr. gladstone was acquainted with the facts i am about to mention when he undertook to write. but, if he did know them, then both what he has said and what he has not said, his assertions and his omissions alike, will require a paragraph to themselves. the common consent of the synoptic gospels affirms that the miraculous transference of devils from a man, or men, to sundry pigs, took place somewhere on the eastern shore of the lake of tiberias; "on the other side of the sea over against galilee," the western shore being, without doubt, included in the latter province. but there is no such concord when we come to the name of the part of the eastern shore, on which, according to the story, jesus and his disciples landed. in the revised version, matthew calls it the "country of the gadarenes:" luke and mark have "gerasenes." in sundry very ancient manuscripts "gergesenes" occurs. the existence of any place called gergesa, however, is declared by the weightiest authorities whom i have consulted to be very questionable; and no such town is mentioned in the list of the cities of the decapolis, in the territory of which (as it would seem from mark v. ) the transaction was supposed to take place. about gerasa, on the other hand, there hangs no such doubt. it was a large and important member of the group of the decapolitan cities. but gerasa is more than thirty miles distant from the nearest part of the lake of tiberias, while the city mentioned in the narrative could not have been very far off the scene of the event. however, as gerasa was a very important hellenic city, not much more than a score of miles from gadara, it is easily imaginable that a locality which was part of decapolitan territory may have been spoken of as belonging to one of the two cities, when it really appertained to the other. after weighing all the arguments, no doubt remains on my mind that "gadarene" is the proper reading. at the period under consideration, gadara appears to have been a good-sized fortified town, about two miles in circumference. it was a place of considerable strategic importance, inasmuch as it lay on a high ridge at the point of intersection of the roads from tiberias, scythopolis, damascus, and gerasa. three miles north from it, where the tiberias road descended into the valley of the hieromices, lay the famous hot springs and the fashionable baths of amatha. on the north-east side, the remains of the extensive necropolis of gadara are still to be seen. innumerable sepulchral chambers are excavated in the limestone cliffs, and many of them still contain sarcophaguses of basalt; while not a few are converted into dwellings by the inhabitants of the present village of um keis. the distance of gadara from the south-eastern shore of the lake of tiberias is less than seven miles. the nearest of the other cities of the decapolis, to the north, is hippos, which also lay some seven miles off, in the south-eastern corner of the shore of the lake. in accordance with the ancient hellenic practice, that each city should be surrounded by a certain amount of territory amenable to its jurisdiction,[ ] and on other grounds, it may be taken for certain that the intermediate country was divided between gadara and hippos; and that the citizens of gadara had free access to a port on the lake. hence the title of "country of the gadarenes" applied to the locality of the porcine catastrophe becomes easily intelligible. the swine may well be imagined to have been feeding (as they do now in the adjacent region) on the hillsides, which slope somewhat steeply down to the lake from the northern boundary wall of the valley of the hieromices (_nahr yarmuk_), about half-way between the city and the shore, and doubtless lay well within the territory of the _polis_ of gadara. the proof that gadara was, to all intents and purposes, a gentile, and not a jewish, city is complete. the date and the occasion of its foundation are unknown; but it certainly existed in the third century b.c. antiochus the great annexed it to his dominions in b.c. . after this, during the brief revival of jewish autonomy, alexander jannæus took it; and for the first time, so far as the records go, it fell under jewish rule.[ ] from this it was rescued by pompey (b.c. ), who rebuilt the city and incorporated it with the province of syria. in gratitude to the romans for the dissolution of a hated union, the gadarenes adopted the pompeian era of their coinage. gadara was a commercial centre of some importance, and therefore, it may be assumed, jews settled in it, as they settled in almost all considerable gentile cities. but a wholly mistaken estimate of the magnitude of the jewish colony has been based upon the notion that gabinius, proconsul of syria in - b.c., seated one of the five sanhedrins in gadara. schürer has pointed out that what he really did was to lodge one of them in gadara, far away on the other side of the jordan. this is one of the many errors which have arisen out of the confusion of the names ga_d_ara, ga_z_ara, and ga_b_ara. augustus made a present of gadara to herod the great, as an appanage personal to himself; and, upon herod's death, recognising it to be a "grecian city" like hippos and gaza,[ ] he transferred it back to its former place in the province of syria. that herod made no effort to judaise his temporary possession, but rather the contrary, is obvious from the fact that the coins of gadara, while under his rule, bear the image of augustus with the superscription [greek: sebastos]--a flying in the face of jewish prejudices which, even he, did not dare to venture upon in judæa. and i may remark that, if my co-trustee of the british museum had taken the trouble to visit the splendid numismatic collection under our charge, he might have seen two coins of gadara, one of the time of tiberius and the other of that of titus, each bearing the effigies of the emperor on the obverse: while the personified genius of the city is on the reverse of the former. further, the well-known works of de saulcy and of ekhel would have supplied the information that, from the time of augustus to that of gordian, the gadarene coinage had the same thoroughly gentile character. curious that a city of "hebrews bound by the mosaic law" should tolerate such a mint! whatever increase in population the ghetto of gadara may have undergone, between b.c. and a.d. , it nowise affected the gentile and anti-judaic character of the city at the outbreak of the great war; for josephus tells us that, immediately after the great massacre of cæsarea, the revolted jews "laid waste the villages of the syrians and their neighbouring cities, philadelphia and sebonitis and gerasa and pella and scythopolis, and after them gadara and hippos" ("wars," ii. xviii. ). i submit that, if gadara had been a city of "hebrews bound by the mosaic law," the ravaging of their territory by their brother jews, in revenge for the massacre of the cæsarean jews by the gentile population of that place, would surely have been a somewhat unaccountable proceeding. but when we proceed a little further, to the fifth section of the chapter in which this statement occurs, the whole affair becomes intelligible enough. besides this murder at scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the jews that were among them: those of askelon slew two thousand five hundred, and those of ptolemais two thousand, and put not a few into bonds; those of tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a great number in prison; moreover, those of hippos and those of gadara did the like, while they put to death the boldest of the jews, but kept those of whom they were most afraid in custody; as did the rest of the cities of syria according as they every one either hated them or were afraid of them. josephus is not always trustworthy, but he has no conceivable motive for altering facts here; he speaks of contemporary events, in which he himself took an active part, and he characterises the cities in the way familiar to him. for josephus, gadara is just as much a gentile city as ptolemais; it was reserved for his latest commentator, either ignoring, or ignorant of, all this, to tell us that gadara had a hebrew population, bound by the mosaic law. in the face of all this evidence, most of which has been put before serious students, with full reference to the needful authorities and in a thoroughly judicial manner, by schürer in his classical work,[ ] one reads with stupefaction the statement which mr. gladstone has thought fit to put before the uninstructed public: some commentators have alleged the authority of josephus for stating that gadara was a city of greeks rather than of jews, from whence it might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful. this is not quite the place for a critical examination of the matter; but i have examined it, and have satisfied myself that josephus gives no reason whatever to suppose that the population of gadara, and still less (if less may be) the population of the neighbourhood, and least of all the swine-herding or lower portion of that population, were other than hebrews bound by the mosaic law. (pp. - .) even "rapid judgment" cannot be pleaded in excuse for this surprising statement, because a "note on the gadarene miracle" is added (in a special appendix), in which the references are given to the passages of josephus, by the improved interpretation of which, mr. gladstone has thus contrived to satisfy himself of the thing which is not. one of these is "antiquities" xvii. xiii. , in which section, i regret to say, i can find no mention of gadara. in "antiquities," xvii. xi. , however, there is a passage which would appear to be that mr. gladstone means; and i will give it in full, although i have already cited part of it: there were also certain of the cities which paid tribute to archelaus; strato's tower, and sebaste, with joppa and jerusalem; for, as to gaza, gadara, and hippos, they were grecian cities, which cæsar separated from his government, and added them to the province of syria. that is to say, augustus simply restored the state of things which existed before he gave gadara, then certainly a gentile city, lying outside judæa, to herod as a mark of great personal favour. yet mr. gladstone can gravely tell those who are not in a position to check his statements: the sense seems to be, not that these cities were inhabited by a greek population, but that they had politically been taken out of judæa and added to syria, which i presume was classified as simply hellenic, a portion of the great greek empire erected by alexander. (pp. - .) mr. gladstone's next reference is to the "wars," iii. vii. : so vespasian marched to the city gadara, and took it upon the first onset, because he found it destitute of a considerable number of men grown up for war. he then came into it, and slew all the youth, the romans having no mercy on any age whatsoever; and this was done out of the hatred they bore the nation, and because of the iniquity they had been guilty of in the affair of cestius. obviously, then, gadara was an ultra-jewish city. q.e.d. but a student trained in the use of weapons of precision, rather than in that of rhetorical tomahawks, has had many and painful warnings to look well about him, before trusting an argument to the mercies of a passage, the context of which he has not carefully considered. if mr. gladstone had not been too much in a hurry to turn his imaginary prize to account--if he had paused just to look at the preceding chapter of josephus--he would have discovered that his much haste meant very little speed. he would have found ("wars," iii. vi. ) that vespasian marched from his base, the port of ptolemais (acre), on the shores of the mediterranean, into galilee; and, having dealt with the so-called "gadara," was minded to finish with jotapata, a strong place about fourteen miles south-east of ptolemais, into which josephus, who at first had fled to tiberias, eventually threw himself--vespasian arriving before jotapata "the very next day." now, if any one will take a decent map of ancient palestine in hand, he will see that jotapata, as i have said, lies about fourteen miles in a straight line east-south-east of ptolemais, while a certain town, "gabara" (which was also held by the jews), is situated, about the same distance, to the east of that port. nothing can be more obvious than that vespasian, wishing to advance from ptolemais into galilee, could not afford to leave these strongholds in the possession of the enemy; and, as gabara would lie on his left flank when he moved to jotapata, he took that city, whence his communications with his base could easily be threatened, first. it might really have been fair evidence of demoniac possession, if the best general of rome had marched forty odd miles, as the crow flies, through hostile galilee, to take a city (which, moreover, had just tried to abolish its jewish population) on the other side of the jordan; and then marched back again to a place fourteen miles off his starting-point.[ ] one would think that the most careless of readers must be startled by this incongruity into inquiring whether there might not be something wrong with the text; and, if he had done so, he would have easily discovered that since the time of reland, a century and a half ago, careful scholars have read ga_b_ara for ga_d_ara.[ ] once more, i venture to point out that training in the use of the weapons of precision of science may have its value in historical studies, if only in preventing the occurrence of droll blunders in geography. in the third citation ("wars," iv. vii.) josephus tells us that vespasian marched against "gadara," which he calls the metropolis of peræa (it was possibly the seat of a common festival of the decapolitan cities), and entered it, without opposition, the wealthy and powerful citizens having opened negotiations with him without the knowledge of an opposite party, who, "as being inferior in number to their enemies, who were within the city, and seeing the romans very near the city," resolved to fly. before doing so, however, they, after a fashion unfortunately too common among the zealots, murdered and shockingly mutilated dolesus, a man of the first rank, who had promoted the embassy to vespasian; and then "ran out of the city." hereupon, "the people of gadara" (surely not this time "hebrews bound by the mosaic law") received vespasian with joyful acclamations, voluntarily pulled down their wall, so that the city could not in future be used as a fortress by the jews, and accepted a roman garrison for their future protection. granting that this gadara really is the city of the gadarenes, the reference, without citation, to the passage, in support of mr. gladstone's contention seems rather remarkable. taken in conjunction with the shortly antecedent ravaging of the gadarene territory by the jews, in fact, better proof could hardly be expected of the real state of the case; namely, that the population of gadara (and notably the wealthy and respectable part of it) was thoroughly hellenic; though, as in cæsarea and elsewhere among the palestinian cities, the rabble contained a considerable body of fanatical jews, whose reckless ferocity made them, even though a mere minority of the population, a standing danger to the city. thus mr. gladstone's conclusion from his study of josephus, that the population of gadara were "hebrews bound by the mosaic law," turns out to depend upon nothing better than the marvellously complete misinterpretation of what that author says, combined with equally marvellous geographical misunderstandings, long since exposed and rectified; while the positive evidence that gadara, like other cities of the decapolis, was thoroughly hellenic in organisation, and essentially gentile in population, is overwhelming. and, that being the fact of the matter, patent to all who will take the trouble to enquire about what has been said about it, however obscure to those who merely talk of so doing, the thesis that the gadarene swineherds, or owners, were jews violating the mosaic law shows itself to be an empty and most unfortunate guess. but really, whether they that kept the swine were jews, or whether they were gentiles, is a consideration which has no relevance whatever to my case. the legal provisions, which alone had authority over an inhabitant of the country of the gadarenes, were the gentile laws sanctioned by the roman suzerain of the province of syria, just as the only law, which has authority in england, is that recognised by the sovereign legislature. jewish communities in england may have their private code, as they doubtless had in gadara. but an english magistrate, if called upon to enforce their peculiar laws, would dismiss the complainants from the judgment seat, let us hope with more politeness than gallio did in a like case, but quite as firmly. moreover, in the matter of keeping pigs, we may be quite certain that gadarene law left everybody free to do as he pleased, indeed encouraged the practice rather than otherwise. not only was pork one of the commonest and one of the most favourite articles of roman diet; but, to both greeks and romans, the pig was a sacrificial animal of high importance. sucking pigs played an important part in hellenic purificatory rites; and everybody knows the significance of the roman suovetaurilia, depicted on so many bas-reliefs. under these circumstances, only the extreme need of a despairing "reconciler" drowning in a sea of adverse facts, can explain the catching at such a poor straw as the reckless guess that the swineherds of the "country of the gadarenes" were erring jews, doing a little clandestine business on their own account. the endeavour to justify the asserted destruction of the swine by the analogy of breaking open a cask of smuggled spirits, and wasting their contents on the ground, is curiously unfortunate. does mr. gladstone mean to suggest that a frenchman landing at dover, and coming upon a cask of smuggled brandy in the course of a stroll along the cliffs, has the right to break it open and waste its contents on the ground? yet the party of galileans who, according to the narrative, landed and took a walk on the gadarene territory, were as much foreigners in the decapolis as frenchmen would be at dover. herod antipas, their sovereign, had no jurisdiction in the decapolis--they were strangers and aliens, with no more right to interfere with a pig-keeping hebrew, than i have a right to interfere with an english professor of the israelitic faith, if i see a slice of ham on his plate. according to the law of the country in which these galilean foreigners found themselves, men might keep pigs if they pleased. if the men who kept them were jews, it might be permissible for the strangers to inform the religious authority acknowledged by the jews of gadara; but to interfere themselves, in such a matter, was a step devoid of either moral or legal justification. suppose a modern english sabbatarian fanatic, who believes, on the strength of his interpretation of the fourth commandment, that it is a deadly sin to work on the "lord's day," sees a fellow puritan yielding to the temptation of getting in his harvest on a fine sunday morning--is the former justified in setting fire to the latter's corn? would not an english court of justice speedily teach him better? in truth, the government which permits private persons, on any pretext (especially pious and patriotic pretexts), to take the law into their own hands, fails in the performance of the primary duties of all governments; while those who set the example of such acts, or who approve them, or who fail to disapprove them, are doing their best to dissolve civil society; they are compassers of illegality and fautors of immorality. i fully understand that mr. gladstone may not see the matter in this light. he may possibly consider that the union of gadara with the decapolis, by augustus, was a "blackguard" transaction, which deprived hellenic gadarene law of all moral force; and that it was quite proper for a jewish galilean, going back to the time when the land of the girgashites was given to his ancestors, some years before, to act, as if the state of things which ought to obtain, in territory which traditionally, at any rate, belonged to his forefathers, did really exist. and, that being so, i can only say i do not agree with him, but leave the matter to the appreciation of those of our countrymen, happily not yet the minority, who believe that the first condition of enduring liberty is obedience to the law of the land. * * * * * the end of the month drawing nigh, i thought it well to send away the manuscript of the foregoing pages yesterday, leaving open, in my own mind, the possibility of adding a succinct characterisation of mr. gladstone's controversial methods as illustrated therein. this morning, however, i had the pleasure of reading a speech which i think must satisfy the requirements of the most fastidious of controversial artists; and there occurs in it so concise, yet so complete, a delineation of mr. gladstone's way of dealing with disputed questions of another kind, that no poor effort of mine could better it as a description of the aspect which his treatment of scientific, historical, and critical questions presents to me. the smallest examination would have told a man of his capacity and of his experience that he was uttering the grossest exaggerations, that he was basing arguments upon the slightest hypotheses, and that his discussions only had to be critically examined by the most careless critic in order to show their intrinsic hollowness. those who have followed me through this paper will hardly dispute the justice of this judgment, severe as it is. but the chief secretary for ireland has science in the blood; and has the advantage of a natural, as well as a highly cultivated, aptitude for the use of methods of precision in investigation, and for the exact enunciation of the results thereby obtained. footnotes: [ ] thus josephus (lib. ix.) says that his rival, justus, persuaded the citizens of tiberias to "set the villages that belonged to gadara and hippos on fire; which villages were situated on the borders of tiberias and of the region of scythopolis." [ ] it is said to have been destroyed by its captors. [ ] "but as to the grecian cities, gaza and gadara and hippos, he cut them off from the kingdom and added them to syria."--josephus, _wars_, ii. vi. . see also _antiquities_, xvii. xi. . [ ] _geschichte des jüdischen volkes im zeitalter christi_, - . [ ] if william the conqueror, after fighting the battle of hastings, had marched to capture chichester and then returned to assault rye, being all the while anxious to reach london, his proceedings would not have been more eccentric than mr. gladstone must imagine those of vespasian were. [ ] see reland, _palestina_ ( ), t. ii. p. . also robinson, _later biblical researches_ ( ), p. _note_. xi: illustrations of mr. gladstone's controversial methods [ ] the series of essays, in defence of the historical accuracy of the jewish and christian scriptures, contributed by mr. gladstone to "good words," having been revised and enlarged by their author, appeared last year as a separate volume, under the somewhat defiant title of "the impregnable rock of holy scripture." the last of these essays, entitled "conclusion," contains an attack, or rather several attacks, couched in language which certainly does not err upon the side of moderation or of courtesy, upon statements and opinions of mine. one of these assaults is a deliberately devised attempt, not merely to rouse the theological prejudices ingrained in the majority of mr. gladstone's readers, but to hold me up as a person who has endeavoured to besmirch the personal character of the object of their veneration. for mr. gladstone asserts that i have undertaken to try "the character of our lord" (p. ); and he tells the many who are, as i think unfortunately, predisposed to place implicit credit in his assertions, that it has been reserved for me to discover that jesus "was no better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer!" (p. ). it was extremely easy for me to prove, as i did in the pages of this review last december, that, under the most favourable interpretation, this amazing declaration must be ascribed to extreme confusion of thought. and, by bringing an abundance of good-will to the consideration of the subject, i have now convinced myself that it is right for me to admit that a person of mr. gladstone's intellectual acuteness really did mistake the reprobation of the course of conduct ascribed to jesus, in a story of which i expressly say i do not believe a word, for an attack on his character and a declaration that he was "no better than a law-breaker, and an evil-doer." at any rate, so far as i can see, this is what mr. gladstone wished to be believed when he wrote the following passage:-- i must, however, in passing, make the confession that i did not state with accuracy, as i ought to have done, the precise form of the accusation. i treated it as an imputation on the action of our lord; he replies that it is only an imputation on the narrative of three evangelists respecting him. the difference, from his point of view, is probably material, and i therefore regret that i overlooked it.[ ] considering the gravity of the error which is here admitted, the fashion of the withdrawal appears more singular than admirable. from my "point of view"--not from mr. gladstone's apparently--the little discrepancy between the facts and mr. gladstone's carefully offensive travesty of them is "probably" (only "probably") material. however, as mr. gladstone concludes with an official expression of regret for his error, it is my business to return an equally official expression of gratitude for the attenuated reparation with which i am favoured. having cleared this specimen of mr. gladstone's controversial method out of the way, i may proceed to the next assault, that on a passage in an article on agnosticism ("nineteenth century," february ), published two years ago. i there said, in referring to the gadarene story, "everything i know of law and justice convinces me that the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanour of evil example." on this, mr. gladstone, continuing his candid and urbane observations, remarks ("impregnable rock," p. ) that, "exercising his rapid judgment on the text," and "not inquiring what anybody else had known or said about it," i had missed a point in support of that "accusation against our lord" which he has now been constrained to admit i never made. the "point" in question is that "gadara was a city of greeks rather than of jews, from whence it might be inferred that to keep swine was innocent and lawful." i conceive that i have abundantly proved that gadara answered exactly to the description here given of it; and i shall show, by and by, that mr. gladstone has used language which, to my mind, involves the admission that the authorities of the city were not jews. but i have also taken a good deal of pains to show that the question thus raised is of no importance in relation to the main issue.[ ] if gadara was, as i maintain it was, a city of the decapolis, hellenistic in constitution and containing a predominantly gentile population, my case is superabundantly fortified. on the other hand, if the hypothesis that gadara was under jewish government, which mr. gladstone seems sometimes to defend and sometimes to give up, were accepted, my case would be nowise weakened. at any rate, gadara was not included within the jurisdiction of the tetrach of galilee; if it had been, the galileans who crossed over the lake to gadara had no official status; and they had no more civil right to punish law-breakers than any other strangers. in my turn, however, i may remark that there is a "point" which appears to have escaped mr. gladstone's notice. and that is somewhat unfortunate, because his whole argument turns upon it. mr. gladstone assumes, as a matter of course, that pig-keeping was an offence against the "law of moses"; and, therefore, that jews who kept pigs were as much liable to legal pains and penalties as englishmen who smuggle brandy ("impregnable rock," p. ). there can be no doubt that, according to the law, as it is defined in the pentateuch, the pig was an "unclean" animal, and that pork was a forbidden article of diet. moreover, since pigs are hardly likely to be kept for the mere love of those unsavoury animals, pig-owning, or swine-herding, must have been, and evidently was, regarded as a suspicious and degrading occupation by strict jews, in the first century a.d. but i should like to know on what provision of the mosaic law, as it is laid down in the pentateuch, mr. gladstone bases the assumption, which is essential to his case, that the possession of pigs and the calling of a swineherd were actually illegal. the inquiry was put to me the other day; and, as i could not answer it, i turned up the article "schwein" in riehm's standard "handwörterbuch," for help out of my difficulty; but unfortunately without success. after speaking of the martyrdom which the jews, under antiochus epiphanes, preferred to eating pork, the writer proceeds:-- it may be, nevertheless, that the practice of keeping pigs may have found its way into palestine in the græco-roman time, in consequence of the great increase of the non-jewish population; yet there is no evidence of it in the new testament; the great herd of swine, , in number, mentioned in the narrative of the possessed, was feeding in the territory of gadara, which belonged to the decapolis; and the prodigal son became a swineherd with the native of a far country into which he had wandered; in neither of these cases is there reason for thinking that the possessors of these herds were jews.[ ] having failed in my search, so far, i took up the next book of reference at hand, kitto's "cyclopædia" (vol. iii. ). there, under "swine," the writer, colonel hamilton smith, seemed at first to give me what i wanted, as he says that swine "appear to have been repeatedly introduced and reared by the hebrew people,[ ] notwithstanding the strong prohibition in the law of moses (is. lxv. )." but, in the first place, isaiah's writings form no part of the "law of moses"; and, in the second place, the people denounced by the prophet in this passage are neither the possessors of pigs, nor swineherds, but these "which eat swine's flesh and broth of abominable things is in their vessels." and when, in despair, i turned to the provisions of the law itself, my difficulty was not cleared up. leviticus xi. (revised version) says, in reference to the pig and other unclean animals: "of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch." in the revised version of deuteronomy, xiv. , the words of the prohibition are identical, and a skilful refiner might possibly satisfy himself, even if he satisfied nobody else, that "carcase" means the body of a live animal as well as a dead one; and that, since swineherds could hardly avoid contact with their charges, their calling was implicitly forbidden.[ ] unfortunately, the authorised version expressly says "dead carcase"; and thus the most rabbinically minded of reconcilers might find his casuistry foiled by that great source of surprises, the "original hebrew." that such check is at any rate possible, is clear from the fact that the legal uncleanness of some animals, as food, did not interfere with their being lawfully possessed, cared for, and sold by jews. the provisions for the ransoming of unclean beasts (lev. xxvii. ) and for the redemption of their sucklings (numbers xviii. ) sufficiently prove this. as the late dr. kalisch has observed in his "commentary" on leviticus, part ii. p. , note:-- though asses and horses, camels and dogs, were kept by the israelites, they were, to a certain extent, associated with the notion of impurity; they might be turned to profitable account by their labour or otherwise, but in respect to food they were an abomination. the same learned commentator (_loc. cit._ p. ) proves that the talmudists forbade the rearing of pigs by jews, unconditionally and everywhere; and even included it under the same ban as the study of greek philosophy, "since both alike were considered to lead to the desertion of the jewish faith." it is very possible, indeed probable, that the pharisees of the fourth decade of our first century took as strong a view of pig-keeping as did their spiritual descendants. but, for all that, it does not follow that the practice was illegal. the stricter jews could not have despised and hated swineherds more than they did publicans; but, so far as i know, there is no provision in the law against the practice of the calling of a tax-gatherer by a jew. the publican was in fact very much in the position of an irish process-server at the present day--more, rather than less, despised and hated on account of the perfect legality of his occupation. except for certain sacrificial purposes, pigs were held in such abhorrence by the ancient egyptians, that swineherds were not permitted to enter a temple, or to intermarry with other castes; and any one who had touched a pig, even accidentally, was unclean. but these very regulations prove that pig-keeping was not illegal; it merely involved certain civil and religious disabilities. for the jews, dogs were typically "unclean animals"; but when that eminently pious hebrew, tobit, "went forth" with the angel "the young man's dog" went "with them" (tobit v. ) without apparent remonstrance from the celestial guide. i really do not see how an appeal to the law could have justified any one in drowning tobit's dog, on the ground that his master was keeping and feeding an animal quite as "unclean" as any pig. certainly the excellent raguel must have failed to see the harm of dog-keeping, for we are told that, on the traveller's return homewards, "the dog went after them" (xi. ). until better light than i have been able to obtain is thrown upon the subject, therefore, it is obvious that mr. gladstone's argumentative house has been built upon an extremely slippery quick-sand; perhaps even has no foundation at all. yet another "point" does not seem to have occurred to mr. gladstone, who is so much shocked that i attach no overwhelming weight to the assertions contained in the synoptic gospels, even when all three concur. these gospels agree in stating, in the most express, and to some extent verbally identical, terms, that the devils entered the pigs at their own request,[ ] and the third gospel (viii. ) tells us what the motive of the demons was in asking the singular boon: "they intreated him that he would not command them to depart into the abyss." from this, it would seem that the devils thought to exchange the heavy punishment of transportation to the abyss for the lighter penalty of imprisonment in swine. and some commentators, more ingenious than respectful to the supposed chief actor in this extraordinary fable, have dwelt, with satisfaction, upon the very unpleasant quarter of an hour which the evil spirits must have had, when the headlong rush of their maddened tenements convinced them how completely they were taken in. in the whole story, there is not one solitary hint that the destruction of the pigs was intended as a punishment of their owners, or of the swineherds. on the contrary, the concurrent testimony of the three narratives is to the effect that the catastrophe was the consequence of diabolic suggestion. and, indeed, no source could be more appropriate for an act of such manifest injustice and illegality. i can but marvel that modern defenders of the faith should not be glad of any reasonable excuse for getting rid of a story which, if it had been invented by voltaire, would have justly let loose floods of orthodox indignation. * * * * * thus, the hypothesis, to which mr. gladstone so fondly clings, finds no support in the provisions of the "law of moses" as that law is defined in the pentateuch; while it is wholly inconsistent with the concurrent testimony of the synoptic gospels, to which mr. gladstone attaches so much weight. in my judgment, it is directly contrary to everything which profane history tells us about the constitution and the population of the city of gadara; and it commits those who accept it to a story which, if it were true, would implicate the founder of christianity in an illegal and inequitable act. such being the case, i consider myself excused from following mr. gladstone through all the meanderings of his late attempt to extricate himself from the maze of historical and exegetical difficulties in which he is entangled. i content myself with assuring those who, with my paper (not mr. gladstone's version of my arguments) in hand, consult the original authorities, that they will find full justification for every statement i have made. but in order to dispose those who cannot, or will not, take that trouble, to believe that the proverbial blindness of one that judges his own cause plays no part in inducing me to speak thus decidedly, i beg their attention to the following examination, which shall be as brief as i can make it, of the seven propositions in which mr. gladstone professes to give a faithful summary of my "errors." when, in the middle of the seventeenth century, the holy see declared that certain propositions contained in the work of bishop jansen were heretical, the jansenists of port royal replied that, while they were ready to defer to the papal authority about questions of faith and morals, they must be permitted to judge about questions of fact for themselves; and that, really, the condemned propositions were not to be found in jansen's writings. as everybody knows, his holiness and the grand monarque replied to this, surely not unreasonable, plea after the manner of lord peter in the "tale of a tub." it is, therefore, not without some apprehension of meeting with a similar fate, that i put in a like plea against mr. gladstone's bull. the seven propositions declared to be false and condemnable, in that kindly and gentle way which so pleasantly compares with the authoritative style of the vatican (no. more particularly), may or may not be true. but they are not to be found in anything i have written. and some of them diametrically contravene that which i have written. i proceed to prove my assertions. prop. . _throughout the paper he confounds together what i had distinguished, namely, the city of gadara and the vicinage attached to it, not as a mere pomoerium, but as a rural district_. in my judgment, this statement is devoid of foundation. in my paper on "the keepers of the herd of swine" i point out, at some length, that, "in accordance with the ancient hellenic practice," each city of the decapolis must have been "surrounded by a certain amount of territory amenable to its jurisdiction": and, to enforce this conclusion, i quote what josephus says about the "villages that belonged to gadara and hippos." as i understand the term _pomerium_ or _pomoerium_,[ ] it means the space which, according to roman custom, was kept free from buildings, immediately within and without the walls of a city; and which defined the range of the _auspicia urbana_. the conception of a _pomoerium_ as a "vicinage attached to" a city, appears to be something quite novel and original. but then, to be sure, i do not know how many senses mr. gladstone may attach to the word "vicinage." whether gadara had a _pomoerium_, in the proper technical sense, or not, is a point on which i offer no opinion. but that the city had a very considerable "rural district" attached to it and notwithstanding its distinctness, amenable to the jurisdiction of the gentile municipal authorities, is one of the main points of my case. prop. . _he more fatally confounds the local civil government and its following, including, perhaps, the whole wealthy class and those attached to it, with the ethnical character of a general population._ having survived confusion no. , which turns out not to be on my side, i am now confronted in no. with a "more fatal" error--and so it is, if there be degrees of fatality; but, again, it is mr. gladstone's and not mine. it would appear, from this proposition (about the grammatical interpretation of which, however, i admit there are difficulties), that mr. gladstone holds that the "local civil government and its following among the wealthy," were ethnically different from the "general population." on p. , he further admits that the "wealthy and the local governing power" were friendly to the romans. are we then to suppose that it was the persons of jewish "ethnical character" who favoured the romans, while those of gentile "ethnical character" were opposed to them? but, if that supposition is absurd, the only alternative is that the local civil government was ethnically gentile. this is exactly my contention. at pp. to of the essay on "the keepers of the herd of swine" i have fully discussed the question of the ethnical character of the general population. i have shown that, according to josephus, who surely ought to have known, gadara was as much a gentile city as ptolemais; i have proved that he includes gadara amongst the cities "that rose up against the jews that were amongst them," which is a pretty definite expression of his belief that the "ethnical character of the general population" was gentile. there is no question here of jews of the roman party fighting with jews of the zealot party, as mr. gladstone suggests. it is the non-jewish and anti-jewish general population which rises up against the jews who had settled "among them." prop. . _his one item of direct evidence as to the gentile character of the city refers only to the former and not to the latter_. more fatal still. but, once more, not to me. i adduce not one, but a variety of "items" in proof of the non-judaic character of the population of gadara: the evidence of history; that of the coinage of the city; the direct testimony of josephus, just cited--to mention no others. i repeat, if the wealthy people and those connected with them--the "classes" and the "hangers on" of mr. gladstone's well-known taxonomy--were, as he appears to admit they were, gentiles; if the "civil government" of the city was in their hands, as the coinage proves it was; what becomes of mr. gladstone's original proposition in "the impregnable rock of scripture" that "the population of gadara, and still less (if less may be) the population of the neighbourhood," were "hebrews bound by the mosaic law"? and what is the importance of estimating the precise proportion of hebrews who may have resided, either in the city of gadara or in its independent territory, when, as mr. gladstone now seems to admit (i am careful to say "seems"), the government, and consequently the law, which ruled in that territory and defined civil right and wrong was gentile and not judaic? but perhaps mr. gladstone is prepared to maintain that the gentile "local civil government" of a city of the decapolis administered jewish law; and showed their respect for it, more particularly, by stamping their coinage with effigies of the emperors. in point of fact, in his haste to attribute to me errors which i have not committed, mr. gladstone has given away his case. prop. . _he fatally confounds the question of political party with those of nationality and of religion, and assumes that those who took the side of rome in the factions that prevailed could not be subject to the mosaic law_. it would seem that i have a feline tenacity of life; once more, a "fatal error." but mr. gladstone has forgotten an excellent rule of controversy; say what is true, of course, but mind that it is decently probable. now it is not decently probable, hardly indeed conceivable, that any one who has read josephus, or any other historian of the jewish war, should be unaware that there were jews (of whom josephus himself was one) who "romanised" and, more or less openly, opposed the war party. but, however that may be, i assert that mr. gladstone neither has produced, nor can produce, a passage of my writing which affords the slightest foundation for this particular article of his indictment. prop. . _his examination of the text of josephus is alike one-sided, inadequate, and erroneous._ easy to say, hard to prove. so long as the authorities whom i have cited are on my side, i do not know why this singularly temperate and convincing dictum should trouble me. i have yet to become acquainted with mr. gladstone's claims to speak with an authority equal to that of scholars of the rank of schürer, whose obviously just and necessary emendations he so unceremoniously pooh-poohs. prop. . _finally, he sets aside, on grounds not critical or historical, but partly subjective, the primary historical testimony on the subject, namely, that of the three synoptic evangelists, who write as contemporaries and deal directly with the subject, neither of which is done by any other authority_. really this is too much! the fact is, as anybody can see who will turn to my article of february [vii. _supra_], out of which all this discussion has arisen, that the arguments upon which i rest the strength of my case touching the swine-miracle, are exactly "historical" and "critical." expressly, and in words that cannot be misunderstood, i refuse to rest on what mr. gladstone calls "subjective" evidence. i abstain from denying the possibility of the gadarene occurrence, and i even go so far as to speak of some physical analogies to possession. in fact, my quondam opponent, dr. wace, shrewdly, but quite fairly, made the most of these admissions; and stated that i had removed the only "consideration which would have been a serious obstacle" in the way of his belief in the gadarene story.[ ] so far from setting aside the authority of the synoptics on "subjective" grounds, i have taken a great deal of trouble to show that my non-belief in the story is based upon what appears to me to be evident; firstly, that the accounts of the three synoptic gospels are not independent, but are founded upon a common source; secondly, that, even if the story of the common tradition proceeded from a contemporary, it would still be worthy of very little credit, seeing the manner in which the legends about mediæval miracles have been propounded by contemporaries. and in illustration of this position i wrote a special essay about the miracles reported by eginhard.[ ] in truth, one need go no further than mr. gladstone's sixth proposition to be convinced that contemporary testimony, even of well-known and distinguished persons, may be but a very frail reed for the support of the historian, when theological prepossession blinds the witness.[ ] prop. . _and he treats the entire question, in the narrowed form in which it arises upon secular testimony, as if it were capable of a solution so clear and summary as to warrant the use of the extremest weapons of controversy against those who presume to differ from him._ the six heretical propositions which have gone before are enunciated with sufficient clearness to enable me to prove, without any difficulty, that, whosesoever they are, they are not mine. but number seven, i confess, is too hard for me. i cannot undertake to contradict that which i do not understand. what is the "entire question" which "arises" in a "narrowed form" upon "secular testimony"? after much guessing, i am fain to give up the conundrum. the "question" may be the ownership of the pigs; or the ethnological character of the gadarenes; or the propriety of meddling with other people's property without legal warrant. and each of these questions might be so "narrowed" when it arose on "secular testimony" that i should not know where i was. so i am silent on this part of the proposition. but i do dimly discern, in the latter moiety of this mysterious paragraph, a reproof of that use of "the extremest weapons of controversy" which is attributed to me. upon which i have to observe that i guide myself, in such matters, very much by the maxim of a great statesman, "do ut des." if mr. gladstone objects to the employment of such weapons of defence, he would do well to abstain from them in attack. he should not frame charges which he has, afterwards, to admit are erroneous, in language of carefully calculated offensiveness ("impregnable rock," pp. - ); he should not assume that persons with whom he disagrees are so recklessly unconscientious as to evade the trouble of inquiring what has been said or known about a grave question ("impregnable rock," p. ); he should not qualify the results of careful thought as "hand-over-head reasoning" ("impregnable rock," p. ); he should not, as in the extraordinary propositions which i have just analysed, make assertions respecting his opponent's position and arguments which are contradicted by the plainest facts. persons who, like myself, have spent their lives outside the political world, yet take a mild and philosophical concern in what goes on in it, often find it difficult to understand what our neighbours call the psychological moment of this or that party leader, and are, occasionally, loth to believe in the seeming conditions of certain kinds of success. and when some chieftain, famous in political warfare, adventures into the region of letters or of science, in full confidence that the methods which have brought fame and honour in his own province will answer there, he is apt to forget that he will be judged by these people, on whom rhetorical artifices have long ceased to take effect; and to whom mere dexterity in putting together cleverly ambiguous phrases, and even the great art of offensive misrepresentation, are unspeakably wearisome. and, if that weariness finds its expression in sarcasm, the offender really has no right to cry out. assuredly ridicule is no test of truth, but it is the righteous meed of some kinds of error. nor ought the attempt to confound the expression of a revolted sense of fair dealing with arrogant impatience of contradiction, to restrain those to whom "the extreme weapons of controversy" come handy from using them. the function of police in the intellectual, if not in the civil, economy may sometimes be legitimately discharged by volunteers. * * * * * some time ago in one of the many criticisms with which i am favoured, i met with the remark that, at our time of life, mr. gladstone and i might be better occupied than in fighting over the gadarene pigs. and, if these too famous swine were the only parties to the suit, i, for my part, should fully admit the justice of the rebuke. but, under the beneficent rule of the court of chancery, in former times, it was not uncommon, that a quarrel about a few perches of worthless land, ended in the ruin of ancient families and the engulfing of great estates; and i think that our admonisher failed to observe the analogy--to note the momentous consequences of the judgment which may be awarded in the present apparently insignificant action _in re_ the swineherds of gadara. the immediate effect of such judgment will be the decision of the question, whether the men of the nineteenth century are to adopt the demonology of the men of the first century, as divinely revealed truth, or to reject it, as degrading falsity. the reverend principal of king's college has delivered his judgment in perfectly clear and candid terms. two years since, dr. wace said that he believed the story as it stands; and consequently he holds, as a part of divine revelation, that the spiritual world comprises devils, who, under certain circumstances, may enter men and be transferred from them to four-footed beasts. for the distinguished anglican divine and biblical scholar, that is part and parcel of the teachings respecting the spiritual world which we owe to the founder of christianity. it is an inseparable part of that christian orthodoxy which, if a man rejects, he is to be considered and called an "infidel." according to the ordinary rules of interpretation of language, mr. gladstone must hold the same view. if antiquity and universality are valid tests of the truth of any belief, no doubt this is one of the beliefs so certified. there are no known savages, nor people sunk in the ignorance of partial civilisation, who do not hold them. the great majority of christians have held them and still hold them. moreover the oldest records we possess of the early conceptions of mankind in egypt and in mesopotamia prove that exactly such demonology, as is implied in the gadarene story, formed the substratum, and, among the early accadians, apparently the greater part, of their supposed knowledge of the spiritual world. m. lenormant's profoundly interesting work on babylonian magic and the magical texts given in the appendix to professor sayce's "hibbert lectures" leave no doubt on this head. they prove that the doctrine of possession, and even the particular case of pig, possession,[ ] were firmly believed in by the egyptians and the mesopotamians before the tribes of israel invaded palestine. and it is evident that these beliefs, from some time after the exile and probably much earlier, completely interpenetrated the jewish mind, and thus became inseparably interwoven with the fabric of the synoptic gospels. therefore, behind the question of the acceptance of the doctrines of the oldest heathen demonology as part of the fundamental beliefs of christianity, there lies the question of the credibility of the gospels, and of their claim to act as our instructors, outside that ethical province in which they appeal to the consciousness of all thoughtful men. and still, behind this problem, there lies another--how far do these ancient records give a sure foundation to the prodigious fabric of christian dogma, which has been built upon them by the continuous labours of speculative theologians, during eighteen centuries? i submit that there are few questions before the men of the rising generation, on the answer to which the future hangs more fatally, than this. we are at the parting of the ways. whether the twentieth century shall see a recrudescence of the superstitions of mediæval papistry, or whether it shall witness the severance of the living body of the ethical ideal of prophetic israel from the carcase, foul with savage superstitions and cankered with false philosophy, to which the theologians have bound it, turns upon their final judgment of the gadarene tale. the gravity of the problems ultimately involved in the discussion of the legend of gadara will, i hope, excuse a persistence in returning to the subject, to which i should not have been moved by merely personal considerations. with respect to the diluvial invective which overflowed thirty-three pages of the "nineteenth century" last january, i doubt not that it has a catastrophic importance in the estimation of its author. i, on the other hand, may be permitted to regard it as a mere spate; noisy and threatening while it lasted, but forgotten almost as soon as it was over. without my help, it will be judged by every instructed and clear-headed reader; and that is fortunate, because, were aid necessary, i have cogent reasons for withholding it. in an article characterised by the same qualities of thought and diction, entitled "a great lesson," which appeared in the "nineteenth century" for september , the duke of argyll, firstly, charged the whole body of men of science, interested in the question, with having conspired to ignore certain criticisms of mr. darwin's theory of the origin of coral reefs; and, secondly, he asserted that some person unnamed had "actually induced" mr. john murray to delay the publication of his views on that subject "for two years." it was easy for me and for others to prove that the first statement was not only, to use the duke of argyll's favourite expression, "contrary to fact," but that it was without any foundation whatever. the second statement rested on the duke of argyll's personal authority. all i could do was to demand the production of the evidence for it. up to the present time, so far as i know, that evidence has not made its appearance; nor has there been any withdrawal of, or apology for, the erroneous charge. under these circumstances most people will understand why the duke of argyll may feel quite secure of having the battle all to himself, whenever it pleases him to attack me. [see the note at the end of "hasisadra's adventure" (vol iv. p. ). the discussion on coral reefs, at the meeting of the british association this year, proves that mr. darwin's views are defended now, as strongly as in , by highly competent authorities. october , .] footnotes: [ ] _nineteenth century_, february , pp. - . [ ] neither is it of any consequence whether the locality of the supposed miracle was gadara, or gerasa, or gergesa. but i may say that i was well acquainted with origen's opinion respecting gergesa. it is fully discussed and rejected in riehm's _handwörterbuch_. in kitto's _biblical cyclopædia_ (ii. p. ) professor porter remarks that origen merely "_conjectures_" that gergesa was indicated: and he adds, "now, in a question of this kind conjectures cannot be admitted. we must implicitly follow the most ancient and creditable testimony, which clearly pronounces in favour of gadarênhôn. this reading is adopted by tischendorf, alford, and tregelles." [ ] i may call attention, in passing, to the fact that this authority, at any rate, has no sort of doubt of the fact that jewish law did not rule in gadara (indeed, under the head of "gadara," in the same work, it is expressly stated that the population of the place consisted "predominantly of heathens"), and that he scouts the notion that the gadarene swineherds were jews. [ ] the evidence adduced, so far as post-exile times are concerned, appears to me insufficient to prove this assertion. [ ] even leviticus xi. , cited without reference to the context, will not serve the purpose; because the swine _is_ "cloven-footed" (lev. xi. ). [ ] st gospel: "and the devils _besought him_, saying, if thou cast us out send us away _into_ the herd of swine." d gospel: "they _besought him_, saying, send us _into_ the swine." d gospel: "they _intreated him_ that he would give them leave to enter _into_ them." [ ] see marquardt, _römische staatsverwaltung_, bd. iii. p. . [ ] _nineteenth century_, march (p. ). [ ] "the value of witness to the miraculous." _nineteenth century_, march . [ ] i cannot ask the editor of this review to reprint pages of an old article,--but the following passages sufficiently illustrate the extent and the character of the discrepancy between the facts of the case and mr. gladstone's account of them:-- "now, in the gadarene affair, i do not think i am unreasonably sceptical if i say that the existence of demons who can be transferred from a man to a pig does thus contravene probability. let me be perfectly candid. i admit i have no _à priori_ objection to offer.... i declare, as plainly as i can, that i am unable to show cause why these transferable devils should not exist." ... ("agnosticism," _nineteenth century_, , p. ). "what then do we know about the originator, or originators, of this groundwork--of that threefold tradition which all three witnesses (in paley's phrase) agree upon--that we should allow their mere statements to outweigh the counter arguments of humanity, of common sense, of exact science, and to imperil the respect which all would be glad to be able to render to their master?" (_ibid._ p. ). i then go on through a couple of pages to discuss the value of the evidence of the synoptics on critical and historical grounds. mr. gladstone cites the essay from which these passages are taken, whence i suppose he has read it; though it may be that he shares the impatience of cardinal manning where my writings are concerned. such impatience will account for, though it will not excuse, his sixth proposition. [ ] the wicked, before being annihilated, returned to the world to disturb men; they entered into the body of unclean animals, "often that of a pig, as on the sarcophagus of seti i. in the soane museum."--lenormant, _chaldean magic,_ p. , editorial note. end of vol. v * * * * * thomas h. huxley's works. collected. essays, mo, cloth, $ . per volume. vol. . method and results. " . darwiniana. " . science and education. " . science and hebrew tradition. " . science and christian tradition. " . hume. " . man's place in nature. " . discourses, biological and geological. " . evolution and ethics, and other essays. the crayfish: an introduction to the study of zoölogy. with illustrations. mo, cloth, $ . . manual of the anatomy of vertebrated animals. illustrated. mo, cloth, $ . . manual of the anatomy of invertebrated animals. illustrated. mo, cloth, $ . . physiography: an introduction to the study of nature. with illustrations and colored plates. mo, cloth, $ . . the origin of species; or, the causes of the phenomena of nature. mo, cloth, $ . . d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * "the book of the year." life and letters of thomas henry huxley by his son, leonard huxley. in two volumes. illustrated. vo. cloth, $ . net. "this very complete revelation of the character and work of a man who must be regarded as one of the forces which gave character to the nineteenth century will be welcomed by a far wider circle of readers than that which is interested in huxley's strictly scientific researches.... these two richly interesting volumes are sure to be widely read."--_london times_. "it 'goes without saying' what precious freight was carried by huxley's letters.... these two delightful volumes."--_london chronicle_. "huxley's life was so full, so active, so many-sided, in touch with such a number of interesting people, that this work appeals to all sorts and conditions of men.... an admirably written biography."--_london standard_. "his letters are a self-revelation of the man, his work, his ambitions, his trials, his views of religion, his philosophy, his public activity and domestic happiness.... whoso reads these volumes will feel that he knows better a man worth knowing, and the number who will read them will be great."--_london telegraph_. "huxley's career makes a wonderful story."--_london mail_. "mr. leonard huxley has given the world many extremely valuable and interesting letters, all characteristic, and he has connected them by a well-written consecutive narrative which is sufficient to weave them together."--_london news_. d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * recent books by distinguished specialists. the comparative physiology and morphology of animals. by prof. joseph le conte. illustrated. mo. cloth, $ . . evolution by atrophy. by jean demoor, jean massart, and Émile vandervelde. a new volume in the international scientific series. mo, cloth, $ . . foot-notes to evolution. a series of popular addresses on the evolution of life. by david starr jordan, ph.d., president of leland stanford junior university. mo. cloth, $ . . outlines of the earth's history. a popular study in physiography. by prof. n.s. shaler, of harvard university. illustrated. mo. cloth, $ . . studies of good and evil. by josiah royce, professor of the history of philosophy in harvard university. mo. cloth, $ . . evolution ethics and animal psychology. by e.p. evans, author of "animal symbolism in ecclesiastical architecture," etc. mo. cloth, $ . . wages and capital. an examination of the wages fund doctrine. by f.w. taussig, professor of political economy in harvard university, author of "tariff history of the united state" and "the silver situation in the united states." mo. cloth, $ . . what is electricity? by prof. john trowbridge, of harvard university. mo. cloth, $ . . the psychology of suggestion. a research into the subconscious nature of man and society. by boris sidis, m.a., ph.d., associate in psychology at the pathological institute of the new york state hospitals. with an introduction by prof. william james, of harvard university. illustrated. mo. cloth, $ . . d. appleton and company, new york * * * * * spencer's synthetic philosophy, mo, cloth, $ . per volume. _new edition of_ first principles. by herbert spencer. new and revised (sixth) edition of the first volume of the author's synthetic philosophy. this fundamental and most important work has been changed in substance and in form to a considerable extent, and largely rewritten and wholly reset. it is now forty years since the author began the "first principles," and its presentation in this definitive form, with the author's last revisions, is an event of peculiar interest and consequence. while experience has not caused him to recede from the general principles set forth, he has made some important changes in the substance and form. his amendments of matter and manner are now final. the contents of the several volumes of the series are as follows: . first principles. i. the unknowable. ii. the knowable. . the principles of biology. vol. . i. the data of biology. ii. the inductions of biology. iii. the evolution of life. . the principles of biology. vol. . iv. morphological development. v. physiological development. vi. laws of multiplication. . the principles of psychology. vol. . i. the data of psychology. ii. the inductions of psychology. iii. general synthesis. iv. special synthesis. v. physical synthesis. . the principles of psychology. vol. . vi. special analysis. vii. general analysis. viii. congruities. ix. corollaries. . the principles of sociology. vol. . i. the data of sociology. ii. the inductions of sociology. iii. the domestic relations. . the principles of sociology. vol. . iv. ceremonial institutions. v. political institutions. . the principles of sociology. vol. . vi. ecclesiastical institutions. vii. professional institutions. viii. industrial institutions. . the principles of ethics. vol. . i. the data of ethics. ii. the inductions of ethics. iii. the ethics of individual life. . the principles of ethics. vol. . iv. the ethics of social life: justice. v. the ethics of social life: negative beneficence. vi. the ethics of social life: positive beneficence. d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * books by prof. g. frederick wright. the scientific aspects of christian evidences. by g. frederick wright, d.d., ll.d., f.g.s.a., professor of the harmony of science and revelation, oberlin college; author of "the logic of christian evidences," "the ice age in north america," etc. illustrated. mo. cloth, $ . . this volume contains the ripest fruit of the author's varied studies along the several cognate lines of evidence which converge with special power in recent times to shed light upon the foundations of christianity. among the subjects discussed are limits of scientific thought, paradoxes of science, god and nature, darwinism and design, mediate miracles, beyond reasonable doubt, the newly discovered external evidences, the evidence of textual criticism, internal evidence of the early date of the gospel, and positive results of the cumulative evidence. these chapters are an elaboration of the lowell institute lectures delivered in boston in . greenland icefields, and life in the north atlantic. with a new discussion of the causes of the ice age. by g. frederick wright, d.d., ll.d., f.g.s.a., author of "the ice age in north america," "man and the glacial period," etc., and warren upham, a.m., f.g.s.a., late of the geological surveys of new hampshire, minnesota, and the united states. with numerous maps and illustrations. mo. cloth, $ . . the ice age in north america, and its bearings upon the antiquity of man. with an appendix on "the probable cause of glaciation," by warren upham, f.g.s.a., assistant on the geological surveys of new hampshire, minnesota, and the united states. new and enlarged edition. with maps and illustrations. vo, pages, and index. cloth, $ . . man and the glacial period. international scientific series. with numerous illustrations. mo. cloth, $ . . "the earlier chapters describing glacial action, and the traces of it in north america--especially the defining of its limits, such as the terminal moraine of the great movement itself--are of great interest and value the maps and diagrams are of much assistance in enabling the reader to grasp the vast extent of the movement."--_london spectator_. d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * d. appleton and company's publications. miscellaneous works of herbert spencer. social statics. new and revised edition, including "the man _versus_ the state." a series of essays on political tendencies heretofore published separately. mo. pages. cloth, $ . . "mr. spencer has thoroughly studied the issues which are behind the social and political life of our own time, not exactly those issues which are discussed in parliament or in congress, but the principles of all modern government, which are slowly changing in response to the broader industrial and general development of human experience. one will obtain no suggestions out of his book for guiding a political party or carrying a point in economics, but he will find the principles of sociology, as they pertain to the whole of life, better stated in these pages than he can find them expressed anywhere else. it is in this sense that this work is important and fresh and vitalizing. it goes constantly to the foundation of things."--_boston herald_. various fragments, mo. cloth, $ . . along with a considerable variety of other matter, these "fragments" include a number of replies to criticisms, among which will be found some of the best specimens of mr. spencer's controversial writings, notably his letter to the london _athenæum_ on professor huxley's famous address on evolutionary ethics. his views on copyright, national and international, "social evolution and social duty," and "anglo-american arbitration," also form a part of the contents. education: intellectual, moral, and physical. mo. paper, cents; cloth, $ . . contents: what knowledge is of most worth? intellectual education. moral education. physical education. the study of sociology. the fifth volume in the international scientific series. mo. cloth, $ . . contents: our need of it. is there a social science? nature of the social science. difficulties of the social science. objective difficulties. subjective difficulties, intellectual. subjective difficulties, emotional, the educational bias. the bias of patriotism. the class bias. the political bias. the theological bias. discipline. preparation in biology. preparation in psychology. conclusion. the inadequacy of "natural selection." mo. paper, cents. this essay, in which professor weismann's theories are criticised, is reprinted from the _contemporary review_, and comprises a forcible presentation of mr. spencer's views upon the general subject indicated in the title. d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * pioneers of science in america. sketches of their lives and scientific work. edited and revised by william jay youmans, m.d. with portraits. vo, cloth, $ . . impelled solely by an enthusiastic love of nature, and neither asking nor receiving outside aid, these early workers opened the way and initiated the movement through which american science has reached its present commanding position. this book gives some account of these men, their early struggles, their scientific labors, and, whenever possible, something of their personal characteristics. this information, often very difficult to obtain, has been collected from a great variety of sources, with the utmost care to secure accuracy. it is presented in a series of sketches, some fifty in all, each with a single exception accompanied with a well-authenticated portrait. "fills a place that needed filling, and is likely to be widely read."--_n.y. sun_. "it is certainly a useful and convenient volume, and readable too, if we judge correctly of the degree of accuracy of the whole by critical examination of those cases in which our own knowledge enables us to form an opinion.... in general, it seems to us that the handy volume is specially to be commended for setting in just historical perspective many of the earlier scientists who are neither very generally nor very well known."--_new york evening post_. "a wonderfully interesting volume. many a young man will find it fascinating. the compilation of the book is a work well done, well worth the doing."--_philadelphia press_. "one of the most valuable books which we have received."--_boston advertiser_. "a book of no little educational value.... an extremely valuable work of reference."--_boston beacon_. "a valuable handbook for those whose work runs on these same lines, and is likely to prove of lasting interest to those for whom '_les documents humain_' are second only to history in importance--nay, are a vital part of history."--_boston transcript_. "a biographical history of science in america, noteworthy for its completeness and scope.... all of the sketches are excellently prepared and unusually interesting."--_chicago record_. "one of the most valuable contributions to american literature recently made.... the pleasing style in which these sketches are written, the plans taken to secure accuracy, and the information conveyed, combine to give them great value and interest. no better or more inspiring reading could be placed in the hands of an intelligent and aspiring young man."--_new york christian work_. "a book whose interest and value are not for to-day or to-morrow, but for indefinite time."--_rochester herald_. "it is difficult to imagine a reader of ordinary intelligence who would not be entertained by the book.... conciseness, exactness, urbanity of tone, and interestingness are the four qualities which chiefly impress the reader of these sketches."--_buffalo express_. "full of interesting and valuable matter."--_the churchman_. new york: d. appleton & co., fifth avenue. * * * * * pioneers of evolution, from thales to huxley. by edward clodd, president of the folk-lore society; author of "the story of creation," "the story of 'primitive' man," etc. with portraits. mo. cloth. $ . . "the mass of interesting material which mr. clodd has got together and woven into a symmetrical story of the progress from ignorance and theory to knowledge and the intelligent recording of fact is prodigious.... the 'goal' to which mr. clodd leads us in so masterly a fashion is but the starting point of fresh achievements, and, in due course, fresh theories. his book furnishes an important contribution to a liberal education."--_london daily chronicle_. "we are always glad to meet mr. clodd. he is never dull; he is always well informed, and he says what he has to say with clearness and precision.... the interest intensifies as mr. clodd attempts to show the part really played in the growth of the doctrine of evolution by men like wallace, darwin, huxley, and spencer.... we commend the book to those who want to know what evolution really means."--_london times_. "this is a book which was needed.... altogether, the book could hardly be better done. it is luminous, lucid, orderly, and temperate. above all, it is entirely free from personal partisanship. each chief actor is sympathetically treated, and friendship is seldom or never allowed to overweight sound judgment."--_london academy_. "we can assure the reader that he will find in this work a very useful guide to the lives and labors of leading evolutionists of the past and present. especially serviceable is the account of mr. herbert spencer and his share in rediscovering evolution, and illustrating its relations to the whole field of human knowledge. his forcible style and wealth of metaphor make all that mr. clodd writes arrestive and interesting."--_london literary world_. "can not but prove welcome to fair-minded men.... to read it is to have an object-lesson in the meaning of evolution.... there is no better book on the subject for the general reader.... no one could go through the book without being both refreshed and newly instructed by its masterly survey of the growth of the most powerful idea of modern times."--_the scotsman_. d. appleton and company, new york. * * * * * evolution of man and christianity. new edition. by the rev. howard macqueary. with a new preface, in which the author answers his critics, and with some important additions. mo. cloth, $ . . "this is a revised and enlarged edition of a book published last year. the author reviews criticisms upon the first edition, denies that he rejects the doctrine of the incarnation, admits his doubts of the physical resurrection of christ, and his belief in evolution. the volume is to be marked as one of the most profound expressions of the modern movement toward broader theological positions."--_brooklyn times_. "he does not write with the animus of the destructive school; he intends to be, and honestly believes he is, doing a work of construction, or at least of reconstruction.... he writes with manifest earnestness and conviction, and in a style which is always clear and energetic."--_churchman_. history of the conflict between religion and science. by dr. john william draper. mo. cloth, $ . . "the key-note to this volume is found in the antagonism between the progressive tendencies of the human mind and the pretensions of ecclesiastical authority, as developed in the history of modern science. no previous writer has treated the subject from this point of view, and the present monograph will be found to possess no less originality of conception than vigor of reasoning and wealth of erudition."--_new york tribune_. a critical history of free thought in reference to the christian religion. by rev. canon adam storey farrar, d.d., f.r.s., etc. mo. cloth, $ . . "a conflict might naturally be anticipated between the reasoning faculties of man and a religion which claims the right, on superhuman authority, to impose limits on the field or manner of their exercise. it is the chief of the movements of free thought which it is my purpose to describe, in their historic succession, and their connection with intellectual causes. we must ascertain the facts, discover the causes, and read the moral."--_the author_. creation or evolution? a philosophical inquiry. by george ticknor curtis, mo. cloth, $ . . "a treatise on the great question of creation or evolution by one who is neither a naturalist nor theologian, and who does not profess to bring to the discussion a special equipment in either of the sciences which the controversy arrays against each other, may seem strange at first sight; but mr. curtis will satisfy the reader, before many pages have been turned, that he has a substantial contribution to make to the debate, and that his book is one to be treated with respect. his part is to apply to the reasonings of the men of science the rigid scrutiny with which the lawyer is accustomed to test the value and pertinency of testimony, and the legitimacy of inferences from established facts."--_new york tribune_. "mr. curtis's book is honorably distinguished from a sadly too great proportion of treatises which profess to discuss the relation of scientific theories to religion, by its author's thorough acquaintance with his subject, his scrupulous fairness, and remarkable freedom from passion."--_london literary world_. d. appleton & co., fifth avenue, new york. * * * * * the warfare of science with theology. a history of the warfare of science with theology in christendom. by andrew d. white, ll.d., late president and professor of history at cornell university. in two volumes. vo. cloth, $ . . "the story of the struggle of searchers after truth with the organized forces of ignorance, bigotry, and superstition is the most inspiring chapter in the whole history of mankind. that story has never been better told than by the ex-president of cornell university in these two volumes.... a wonderful story it is that he tells."--_london daily chronicle_. "a literary event of prime importance is the appearance of 'a history of the warfare of science with theology in christendom.'"--_philadelphia press_. "such an honest and thorough treatment of the subject in all its bearings that it will carry weight and be accepted as an authority in tracing the process by which the scientific method has come to be supreme in modern thought and life."--_boston herald_. "a great work of a great man upon great subjects, and will always be a religio-scientific classic."--_chicago evening post_. "it is graphic, lucid, even-tempered--never bitter nor vindictive. no student of human progress should fail to read these volumes. while they have about them the fascination of a well-told tale, they are also crowded with the facts of history that have had a tremendous bearing upon the development of the race."--_brooklyn eagle_. "the same liberal spirit that marked his public life is seen in the pages of his book, giving it a zest and interest that can not fail to secure for it hearty commendation and honest praise."--_philadelphia public ledger_. "a conscientious summary of the body of learning to which it relates accumulated during long years of research.... a monument of industry."--_n.y. evening post_. "a work which constitutes in many ways the most instructive review that has ever been written of the evolution of human knowledge in its conflict with dogmatic belief.... as a contribution to the literature of liberal thought, the book is one the importance of which can not be easily overrated."--_boston beacon_. "the most valuable contribution that has yet been made to the history of the conflicts between the theologists and the scientists."--_buffalo commercial_. "undoubtedly the most exhaustive treatise which has been written on this subject.... able, scholarly, critical, impartial in tone and exhaustive in treatment."--_boston advertiser_. new york: d. appleton & co., fifth avenue. * * * * * a new book by prof. groos. the play of man. by karl groos, professor of philosophy in the university of basel, and author of "the play of animals." translated, with the author's cooperation, by elizabeth l. baldwin, and edited, with a preface and appendix, by prof. j. mark baldwin, of princeton university. mo. cloth, $ . net; postage, cents additional. the results of professor groos's original and acute investigations are of peculiar value to those who are interested in psychology and sociology, and they are of great importance to educators. he presents the anthropological aspects of the subject treated in his psychological study of the play of animals, which has already become a classic. professor groos, who agrees with the followers of weismann, develops the great importance of the child's play as tending to strengthen his inheritance in the acquisition of adaptations to his environment. the influence of play on character, and its relation to education, are suggestively indicated. the playful manifestations affecting the child himself and those affecting his relations to others have been carefully classified, and the reader is led from the simpler exercises of the sensory apparatus through a variety of divisions to inner imitations and social play. the biological, æsthetic, ethical, and pedagogical standpoints receive much attention from the investigator. while this book is an illuminating contribution to scientific literature, it is of eminently practical value. its illustrations and lessons will be studied and applied by educators, and the importance of this original presentation of a most fertile subject will be appreciated by parents as well as by those who are interested as general students of sociological and psychological themes. d. appleton and company, new york. little blue book no. edited by e. haldeman-julius the miraculous revenge bernard shaw haldeman-julius company girard, kansas printed in the united states of america the miraculous revenge [illustration: bernard shaw] the miraculous revenge i arrived in dublin on the evening of the fifth of august, and drove to the residence of my uncle, the cardinal archbishop. he is like most of my family, deficient in feeling, and consequently averse to me personally. he lives in a dingy house, with a side-long view of the portico of his cathedral from the front windows, and of a monster national school from the back. my uncle maintains no retinue. the people believe that he is waited upon by angels. when i knocked at the door, an old woman, his only servant, opened it, and informed me that her master was then officiating at the cathedral, and that he had directed her to prepare dinner for me in his absence. an unpleasant smell of salt fish made me ask her what the dinner consisted of. she assured me that she had cooked all that could be permitted in his holiness's house on friday. on my asking her further why on friday, she replied that friday was a fast day. i bade her tell his holiness that i had hoped to have the pleasure of calling on him shortly, and drove to the hotel in sackville-street, where i engaged apartments and dined. after dinner i resumed my eternal search--i know not for what: it drives me to and fro like another cain. i sought in the streets without success. i went to the theatre. the music was execrable, the scenery poor. i had seen the play a month before in london with the same beautiful artist in the chief part. two years had passed since, seeing her for the first time, i had hoped that she, perhaps, might be the long-sought mystery. it had proved otherwise. on this night i looked at her and listened to her for the sake of that bygone hope, and applauded her generously when the curtain fell. but i went out lonely still. when i had supped at a restaurant, i returned to my hotel, and tried to read. in vain. the sound of feet in the corridors as the other occupants of the hotel went to bed distracted my attention from my book. suddenly it occurred to to me that i had never quite understood my uncle's character. he, father to a great flock of poor and ignorant irish; an austere and saintly man, to whom livers of hopeless lives daily appealed for help heavenward; who was reputed never to have sent away a troubled peasant without relieving him of his burden by sharing it; whose knees were worn less by the altar steps than by the tears and embraces of the guilty and wretched: he refused to humor my light extravagances, or to find time to talk with me of books, flowers, and music. had i not been mad to expect it? now that i needed sympathy myself, i did him justice. i desired to be with a true-hearted man, and mingle my tears with his. i looked at my watch. it was nearly an hour past midnight. in the corridor the lights were out, except one jet at the end. i threw a cloak upon my shoulders, put on a spanish hat and left my apartment, listening to the echoes of my measured steps retreating through the deserted passages. a strange sight arrested me on the landing of the grand staircase. through an open door i saw the moonlight shining through the windows of a saloon in which some entertainment had recently taken place. i looked at my watch again: it was but one o'clock; and yet the guests had departed. i entered the room, my boots ringing loudly on the waxed boards. on a chair lay a child's cloak and a broken toy. the entertainment had been a children's party. i stood for a time looking at the shadow of my cloaked figure on the floor, and at the disordered decorations, ghostly in the white light. then i saw there was a grand piano still open in the middle of the room. my fingers throbbed as i sat down before it and expressed all i felt in a grand hymn which seemed to thrill the cold stillness of the shadows into a deep hum of approbation, and to people the radiance of the moon with angels. soon there was a stir without too, as if the rapture were spreading abroad. i took up the chant triumphantly with my voice, and the empty saloon resounded as though to the thunder of an orchestra. "hallo sir!" "confound you, sir--" "do you suppose that this--" "what the deuce--?" i turned; and silence followed. six men, partially dressed, with disheveled hair, stood regarding me angrily. they all carried candles. one of them had a bootjack, which he held like a truncheon. another, the foremost, had a pistol. the night porter was behind trembling. "sir," said the man with the revolver, coarsely, "may i ask whether you are mad, that you disturb people at this hour with such unearthly noise?" "is it possible that you dislike it?" i replied courteously. "dislike it!" said he, stamping with rage. "why--damn everything--do you suppose we were enjoying it?" "take care: he's mad," whispered the man with the bootjack. i began to laugh. evidently they did think me mad. unaccustomed to my habits, and ignorant of the music as they probably were, the mistake, however absurd, was not unnatural. i rose. they came closer to one another; and the night porter ran away. "gentlemen," i said, "i am sorry for you. had you lain still and listened, we should all have been the better and happier. but what you have done, you cannot undo. kindly inform the night porter that i am gone to visit my uncle, the cardinal archbishop. adieu!" i strode past them, and left them whispering among themselves. some minutes later i knocked at the door of the cardinal's house. presently a window opened and the moonbeams fell on a grey head, with a black cap that seemed ashy pale against the unfathomable gloom of the shadow beneath the stone sill. "who are you?" "i am zeno legge." "what do you want at this hour?" the question wounded me. "my dear uncle," i exclaimed, "i know you do not intend it, but you make me feel unwelcome. come down and let me in, i beg." "go to your hotel," he said sternly. "i will see you in the morning. goodnight." he disappeared and closed the window. i felt that if i let this rebuff pass, i should not feel kindly towards my uncle in the morning, nor indeed at any future time. i therefore plied the knocker with my right hand, and kept the bell ringing with my left until i heard the door chain rattle within. the cardinal's expression was grave nearly to moroseness as he confronted me on the threshold. "uncle," i cried, grasping his hand, "do not reproach me. your door is never shut against the wretched. let us sit up all night and talk." "you may thank my position and my charity for your admission, zeno," he said. "for the sake of the neighbors, i had rather you played the fool in my study than upon my doorstep at this hour. walk upstairs quietly if you please. my housekeeper is a hard-working woman: the little sleep she allows herself must not be disturbed." "you have a noble heart, uncle. i shall creep like a mouse." "this is my study," he said as we entered an ill-furnished den on the second floor. "the only refreshment i can offer you, if you desire any, is a bunch of raisins. the doctors have forbidden you to touch stimulants, i believe." "by heaven----!" he raised his finger. "pardon me: i was wrong to swear. but i had totally forgotten the doctors. at dinner i had a bottle of grave." "humph! you have no business to be traveling alone. your mother promised that bushy should come over here with you." "pshaw! bushy is not a man of feeling. besides, he is a coward. he refused to come with me because i purchased a revolver." "he should have taken the revolver from you, and kept to his post." "why will you persist in treating me like a child, uncle? i am very impressionable, i grant you; but i have gone around the world alone, and do not need to be dry-nursed through a tour in ireland." "what do you intend to do during your stay here?" i had no plans and instead of answering i shrugged my shoulders and looked round the apartment. there was a statue of the virgin upon my uncle's desk. i looked at its face, as he was wont to look in the midst of his labor. i saw there eternal peace. the air became luminous with an infinite net-work of the jeweled rings of paradise descending in roseate clouds upon us. "uncle," i said, bursting into the sweetest tears i had ever shed, "my wanderings are over. i will enter the church, if you will help me. let us read together the third part of faust; for i understand it at last." "hush, man," he said, half rising with an expression of alarm. "control yourself." "do not let tears mislead you. i am calm and strong. quick, let us have goethe: das unbeschreibliche, hier ist gethan; das ewig-weibliche, zieht uns hinan." "come, come. dry your eyes and be quiet. i have no library here." "but i have--in my portmanteau at the hotel," i said, rising. "let me go for it. i will return in fifteen minutes." "the devil is in you, i believe. cannot----" i interrupted him with a shout of laughter. "cardinal," i said noisily, "you have become profane; and a profane priest is always the best of good fellows. let us have some wine; and i will sing you a german beer song." "heaven forgive me if i do you wrong," he said; "but i believe god has laid the expiation of some sin on your unhappy head. will you favor me with your attention for awhile? i have something to say to you, and i have also to get some sleep before my hour of rising, which is half-past five." "my usual hour for retiring--when i retire at all. but proceed. my fault is not inattention, but over-susceptibility." "well, then, i want you to go to wicklow. my reasons----" "no matter what they may be," said i, rising again. "it is enough that you desire me to go. i shall start forthwith." "zeno! will you sit down and listen to me?" i sank upon my chair reluctantly. "ardor is a crime in your eyes, even when it is shewn in your service," i said. "may i turn down the light?" "why?" "to bring on my sombre mood, in which i am able to listen with tireless patience." "i will turn it down myself. will that do?" i thanked him and composed myself to listen in the shadow. my eyes, i felt, glittered. i was like poe's raven. "now for my reasons for sending you to wicklow. first, for your own sake. if you stay in town, or in any place where excitement can be obtained by any means, you will be in swift's hospital in a week. you must live in the country, under the eye of one upon whom i can depend. and you must have something to do to keep you out of mischief and away from your music and painting and poetry, which, sir john richard writes to me, are dangerous for you in your present morbid state. second, because i can entrust you with a task which, in the hands of a sensible man might bring discredit on the church. in short, i want you to investigate a miracle." he looked attentively at me. i sat like a statue. "you understand me?" he said. "nevermore," i replied, hoarsely. "pardon me," i added, amused at the trick my imagination had played me, "i understand you perfectly. proceed." "i hope you do. well, four miles distant from the town of wicklow is a village called four mile water. the resident priest is father hickey. you have heard of the miracles at knock?" i winked. "i did not ask you what you think of them but whether you have heard of them. i see you have. i need not tell you that even a miracle may do more harm than good to the church in this country, unless it can be proved so thoroughly that her powerful and jealous enemies are silenced by the testimony of followers of their heresy. therefore, when i saw in a wexford newspaper last week a description of a strange manifestation of the divine power which was said to have taken place at four mile water, i was troubled in my mind about it. so i wrote to father hickey, bidding him give me an account of the matter if it were true, and, if it were not, to denounce from the altar the author of the report, and contradict it in the paper at once. this is his reply. he says, well, the first part is about church matters: i need not trouble you with it. he goes on to say----" "one moment. is this his own hand-writing? it does not look like a man's." "he suffers from rheumatism in the fingers of his right hand; and his niece, who is an orphan, and lives with him, acts as his amanuensis. well----" "stay. what is her name?" "her name? kate hickey." "how old is she?" "tush, man, she is only a little girl. if she were old enough to concern you, i should not send you into her way. have you any more questions to ask about her?" "i fancy her in a white veil at the rite of confirmation, a type of innocence. enough of her. what says reverend hickey of the apparitions?" "they are not apparitions. i will read you what he says. ahem! 'in reply to your inquiries concerning the late miraculous event in this parish, i have to inform you that i can vouch for its truth, and that i can be confirmed not only by the inhabitants of the place, who are all catholics, but by every persons acquainted with the former situation of the graveyard referred to, including the protestant archdeacon of baltinglas, who spends six weeks annually in the neighborhood. the newspaper account is incomplete and inaccurate. the following are the facts: about four years ago, a man named wolfe tone fitzgerald settled in this village as a farrier. his antecedents did not transpire, and he had no family. he lived by himself; was very careless of his person; and when in his cups as he often was, regarded the honor neither of god nor man in his conversation. indeed if it were not speaking ill of the dead, one might say that he was a dirty, drunken, blasphemous blackguard. worse again, he was, i fear, an atheist; for he never attended mass, and gave his holiness worse language even than he gave the queen. i should have mentioned that he was a bitter rebel, and boasted that his grandfather had been out in ' , and his father with smith o'brien. at last he went by the name of brimstone billy, and was held up in the village as the type of all wickedness. "'you are aware that our graveyard, situate on the north side of the water, is famous throughout the country as the burial-place of the nuns of st. ursula, the hermit of four mile water, and many other holy people. no protestant has ever ventured to enforce his legal right of interment there, though two have died in the parish within my own recollection. three weeks ago, this fitzgerald died in a fit brought on by drink; and a great hullabaloo was raised in the village when it became known that he would be buried in the graveyard. the body had to be watched to prevent its being stolen and buried at the crossroads. my people were greatly disappointed when they were told i could do nothing to stop the burial, particularly as i of course refused to read any service on the occasion. however, i bade them not interfere; and the interment was effected on the th of july, late in the evening, and long after the legal hour. there was no disturbance. next morning, the graveyard was found moved to the south side of the water, with the one newly-filled grave left behind on the north side; and thus they both remain. the departed saints would not lie with the reprobate. i can testify to it on the oath of a christian priest; and if this will not satisfy those outside the church, everyone, as i said before, who remembers where the graveyard was two months ago, can confirm me. "'i respectfully suggest that a thorough investigation into the truth of this miracle be proposed to a committee of protestant gentlemen. they shall not be asked to accept a single fact on hearsay from my people. the ordnance maps shew where the graveyard was; and anyone can see for himself where it is. i need not tell your eminence what a rebuke this would be to those enemies of the holy church that have sought to put a stain on her by discrediting the late wonderful manifestations at knock chapel. if they come to four mile water, they need cross-examine no one. they will be asked to believe nothing but their own senses. "'awaiting your eminence's counsel to guide me further in the matter, "'i am, etc.' "well, zeno," said my uncle: "what do you think of father hickey now?" "uncle: do not ask me. beneath this roof i desire to believe everything. the reverend hickey has appealed strongly to my love of legend. let us admire the poetry of his narrative and ignore the balance of probability between a christian priest telling a lie on his own oath and a graveyard swimming across a river in the middle of the night and forgetting to return." "tom hickey is not telling a lie, you may take my word on that. but he may be mistaken." "such a mistake amounts to insanity. it is true that i myself, awakening suddenly in the depth of night have found myself convinced that the position of my bed had been reversed. but on opening my eyes the illusion ceased. i fear mr. hickey is mad. your best course is this. send down to four mile water a perfectly sane investigator; an acute observer; one whose perceptive faculties, at once healthy and subtle, are absolutely unclouded by religious prejudice. in a word, send me. i will report to you the true state of affairs in a few days; and you can then make arrangements for transferring hickey from the altar to the asylum." "yes i had intended to send you. you are wonderfully sharp; and you would make a capital detective if you could only keep your mind to one point. but your chief qualifications for this business is that you are too crazy to excite the suspicion of those whom you have to watch. for the affair may be a trick. if so, i hope and believe that hickey has no hand in it. still, it is my duty to take every precaution." "cardinal: may i ask whether traces of insanity have ever appeared in our family?" "except in you and in my grandmother, no. she was a pole; and you resemble her personally. why do you ask?" "because it has often occurred to me that you are perhaps a little cracked. excuse my candor; but a man who has devoted his life to the pursuit of a red hat; who accuses everyone else beside himself of being mad; and is disposed to listen seriously to a tale of a peripatetic graveyard, can hardly be quite sane. depend upon it, uncle, you want rest and change. the blood of your polish grandmother is in your veins." "i hope i may not be committing a sin in sending a ribald on the church's affairs," he replied, fervently. "however, we must use the instruments put into our hands. is it agreed that you go?" "had you not delayed me with the story, which i might as well have learned on the spot, i should have been there already." "there is no occasion for impatience, zeno. i must send to hickey and find a place for you. i shall tell him you are going to recover your health, as, in fact, you are. and, zeno, in heaven's name be discreet. try to act like a man of sense. do not dispute with hickey on matters of religion. since you are my nephew, you had better not disgrace me." "i shall become an ardent catholic, and do you infinite credit, uncle." "i wish you would, although you would hardly be an acquisition to the church. and now i must turn you out. it is nearly three o'clock; and i need some sleep. do you know your way back to your hotel?" "i need not stir. i can sleep in this chair. go to bed, and never mind me." "i shall not close my eyes until you are safely out of the house. come, rouse yourself and say good-night." * * * * * the following is a copy of my first report to the cardinal:-- "four mile water, county wicklow, th august. "my dear uncle, "the miracle is genuine. i have affected perfect credulity in order to throw the hickeys and countryfolk off their guard with me. i have listened to their method of convincing the sceptical strangers. i have examined the ordnance maps, and cross-examined the neighboring protestant gentlefolk. i have spent a day upon the ground on each side of the water, and have visited it at midnight. i have considered the upheaval theories, subsidence theories, volcanic theories, and tidal wave theories which the provincial savants have suggested. they are all untenable. there is only one scoffer in the district, an orangeman; and he admits the removal of the cemetery, but says it was dug up and transplanted in the night by a body of men under the command of father tom. this is also out of the question. the interment of brimstone billy was the first which had taken place for four years; and his is the only grave which bears the trace of recent digging. it is alone on the north bank; and the inhabitants shun it after night fall. as each passer-by during the day throws a stone upon it, it will soon be marked by a large cairn. the graveyard, with a ruined stone chapel still standing in its midst, is on the south side. you may send down a committee to investigate the matter as soon as you please. there can be no doubt as to the miracle having actually taken place, as recorded by hickey. as for me, i have grown so accustomed to it that if the county wicklow were to waltz off with me to middlesex, i should be quite impatient of any expression of surprise from my friends in london. "is not the above a businesslike statement? away, then, with this stale miracle. if you would see for yourself a miracle which can never pall, a vision of youth and health to be crowned with garlands for ever, come down and see kate hickey, whom you suppose to be a little girl. illusion, my lord cardinal, illusion! she is seventeen, with a bloom and a brogue that would lay your asceticism in ashes at a flash. to her i am an object of wonder, a strange man bred in wicked cities. she is courted by six feet of farming material, chopped off a spare length of coarse humanity by the almighty, and flung into wicklow to plough the fields. his name is phil langan; and he hates me. i have to consort with him for the sake of father tom, whom i entertain vastly by stories of your wild oats sown at salamanca. i exhausted my authentic anecdotes the first day; and now i invent gallant escapades with spanish donnas, in which you figure as a youth of unstable morals. this delights father tom infinitely. i feel that i have done you a service by thus casting on the cold sacerdotal abstraction which formerly represented you in kate's imagination a ray of vivifying passion. "what a country this is! a hesperidean garden: such skies! adieu, uncle. "zeno legge." * * * * * behold me, at four mile water, in love. i had been in love frequently; but not oftener than once a year had i encountered a woman who affected me so seriously as kate hickey. she was so shrewd, and yet so flippant! when i spoke of art she yawned. when i deplored the sordidness of the world she laughed, and called me "poor fellow!" when i told her what a treasure of beauty and freshness she had she ridiculed me. when i reproached her with her brutality she became angry, and sneered at me for being what she called a fine gentleman. one sunny afternoon we were standing at the gate of her uncle's house, she looking down the dusty road for the detestable langan, i watching the spotless azure sky, when she said: "how soon are you going back to london?" "i am not going back to london. miss hickey. i am not yet tired of four mile water." "i am sure that four mile water ought to be proud of your approbation." "you disapprove of my liking it, then? or is it that you grudge me the happiness i have found here? i think irish ladies grudge a man a moment's peace." "i wonder you have ever prevailed on yourself to associate with irish ladies, since they are so far beneath you." "did i say they were beneath me, miss hickey? i feel that i have made a deep impression on you." "indeed! yes, you're quite right. i assure you i can't sleep at night for thinking of you, mr. legge. it's the best a christian can do, seeing you think so mightly little of yourself." "you are triply wrong, miss hickey: wrong to be sarcastic with me, wrong to discourage the candor with which you think of me sometimes, and wrong to discourage the candor with which i always avow that i think constantly of myself." "then you had better not speak to me, since i have no manners." "again! did i say you had no manners? the warmest expressions of regard from my mouth seem to reach your ears transformed into insults. were i to repeat the litany of the blessed virgin, you would retort as though i had been reproaching you. this is because you hate me. you never misunderstand langan, whom you love." "i don't know what london manners are, mr. legge; but in ireland gentlemen are expected to mind their own business. how dare you say i love mr. langan?" "then you do not love him?" "it is nothing to you whether i love him or not." "nothing to me that you hate me and love another?" "i didn't say i hated you. you're not so very clever yourself at understanding what people say, though you make such a fuss because they don't understand you." here, as she glanced down the road she suddenly looked glad. "aha!" i said. "what do you mean by 'aha!'" "no matter. i will now show you what a man's sympathy is. as you perceived just then, langan--who is too tall for his age, by-the-by--is coming to pay you a visit. well, instead of staying with you, as a jealous woman would, i will withdraw." "i don't care whether you go or stay, i'm sure. i wonder what you would give to be as fine a man as mr. langan?" "all i possess: i swear it! but solely because you admire tall men more than broad views. mr. langan may be defined geometrically as length without breadth; altitude without position; a line on the landscape, not a point in it." "how very clever you are!" "you don't understand me, i see. here comes your lover, stepping over the wall like a camel. and here go i out through the gate like a christian. good afternoon, mr. langan. i am going because miss hickey has something to say to you about me which she would rather not say in my presence. you will excuse me?" "oh, i'll excuse you," he said boorishly. i smiled, and went out. before i was out of hearing, kate whispered vehemently to him, "i hate that fellow." i smiled again; but i had scarcely done so when my spirits fell. i walked hastily away with a coarse threatening sound in my ears like that of the clarionets whose sustained low notes darken the woodland in "der frieschutz." i found myself presently at the graveyard. it was a barren place, enclosed by a mud wall with a gate to admit funerals, and numerous gaps to admit peasantry, who made short cuts across it as they went to and fro between four mile water and the market town. the graves were mounds overgrown with grass: there was no keeper; nor were there flowers, railings, or any other conventionalities that make an english graveyard repulsive. a great thornbush, near what was called the grave of the holy sisters, was covered with scraps of cloth and flannel, attached by peasant women who had prayed before it. there were three kneeling there as i enterd; for the reputation of the place had been revived of late by the miracle; and a ferry had been established close by, to conduct visitors over the route taken by the graveyard. from where i stood i could see on the opposite bank the heap of stones, perceptibly increased since my last visit, marking the deserted grave of brimstone billy. i strained my eyes broodingly at it for some minutes, and then descended the river bank and entered the boat. "good evenin t'your honor," said the ferryman, and set to work to draw the boat over hand by a rope stretched across the water. "good evening. is your business beginning to fall off yet?" "faith, it never was as good as it might a been. the people that comes from the south side can see billy's grave--lord have mercy on him!--across the wather; and they think bad of payin a penny to put a stone over him. it's them that lives towrst dublin that makes the journey. your honor is the third i've brought from the south to north this blessed day." "when do most people come? in the afternoon, i suppose?" "all hours, sur, except afther dusk. there isn't a sowl in the counthry ud come within sight of the grave wanst the sun goes down." "and you! do you stay here all night by yourself?" "the holy heavens forbid! is it me stay here all night? no, your honor: i tether the boat at siven o'hlyock, and lave brimstone billy--god forgimme!--to take care of it t'll mornin." "it will be stolen some night, i'm afraid." "arra, who'd dar come next or near it, let alone stale it? faith, i'd think twice before lookin at it meself in the dark. god bless your honor, an gran'che long life." i had given him sixpence. i went on to the reprobate's grave and stood at the foot of it, looking at the sky, gorgeous with the descent of the sun. to my english eyes, accustomed to giant trees, broad lawns, and stately mansions, the landscape was wild and inhospitable. the ferryman was already tugging at the rope on his way back (i had told him that i did not intend to return that way), and presently i saw him make the painter fast to the south bank; put on his coat; and trudge homeward. i turned to the grave at my feet. those who had interred brimstone billy, working hastily at an unlawful hour and in fear of molestation by the people, had hardly dug a grave. they had scooped out earth enough to hide their burden, and no more. a stray goat had kicked away the corner of the mound and exposed the coffin. it occurred to me, as i took some of the stones from the cairn, and heaped them to repair the breach, that had the miracle been the work of a body of men, they would have moved the one grave instead of the many. even from a supernatural point of view, it seemed strange that the sinner should have banished the elect, when, by their superior numbers, they might so much more easily have banished him. it was almost dark when i left the spot. after a walk of half a mile i recrossed the water by a bridge and returned to the farm house in which i lodged. here, finding that i had enough of solitude, i only stayed to take a cup of tea. then i went to father hickey's cottage. kate was alone when i entered. she looked up quickly as i opened the door, and turned away disappointed when she recognized me. "be generous for once," i said. "i have walked about aimlessly for hours in order to avoid spoiling the beautiful afternoon for you by my presence. when the sun was up i withdrew my shadow from your path. now that darkness has fallen, shed some light on mine. may i stay half an hour?" "you may stay as long as you like, of course. my uncle will soon be home. he is clever enough to talk to you." "what! more sarcasm! come, miss hickey, help me to spend a pleasant evening. it will only cost you a smile. i am somewhat cast down. four mile water is a paradise; but without you it would be lonely." "it must be very lonely for you. i wonder why you came here." "because i heard that the women here were all zerlinas, like you, and the men masettos, like mr. phil--where are you going to?" "let me pass, mr. legge, i had intended never speaking to you again after the way you went on about mr. langan today; and i wouldn't either, only my uncle made me promise not to take any notice of you, because you were--no matter; but i won't listen to you any more on the subject." "don't go. i swear never to mention his name again. i beg your pardon for what i said: you shall have no further cause for complaint. will you forgive me?" she sat down evidently disappointed by my submission. i took a chair, and placed myself near her. she tapped the floor impatiently with her foot. i saw that there was not a movement that i could make, not a look, not a tone of voice, which did not irritate her. "you were remarking," i said, "that your uncle desired you take no notice of me because----" she closed her lips and did not answer. "i fear that i have offended you again by my curiosity. but indeed, i had no idea that he had forbidden you to tell me the reason." "he did not forbid me. since you are so determined to find out----" "no; excuse me. i do not wish to know, i am sorry i asked." "indeed! perhaps you would be sorrier if you were told i only made a secret of it out of consideration for you." "then your uncle has spoken ill of me behind my back. if that be so there is no such thing as a true man in ireland, i would not have believed it on the word of any woman alive save yourself." "i never said my uncle was a backbiter. just to shew you what he thinks of you, i will tell you, whether you want to know or not, that he bid me not mind you because you were only a poor mad creature, sent down here by your family to be out of harm's way." "oh, miss hickey!" "there now! you have got it out of me; and i wish i had bit my tongue out first. i sometimes think--that i mayn't sin!--that you have a bad angel in you." "i am glad you told me this," i said gently. "do not reproach yourself for having done so, i beg. your uncle has been misled by what he has heard of my family, who are all more or less insane. far from being mad, i am actually the only rational man named legge in the three kingdoms. i will prove this to you, and at the same time keep your indiscretion in countenance, by telling you something i ought not to tell you. it is this. i am not here as an invalid or a chance tourist. i am here to investigate the miracle. the cardinal, a shrewd and somewhat erratic man, selected mine from all the long heads at his disposal to come down here, and find out the truth of father hickey's story. would he have entrusted such a task to a madman, think you?" "the truth of--who dared to doubt my uncle's word? and so you are a spy, a dirty informer." i started. the adjective she had used, though probably the commonest expression of contempt in ireland, is revolting to an englishman. "miss hickey," i said: "there is in me, as you have said, a bad angel. do not shock my good angel--who is a person of taste--quite away from my heart, lest the other be left undisputed monarch of it. hark! the chapel bell is ringing the angelus. can you, with that sound softening the darkness of the village night, cherish a feeling of spite against one who admires you?" "you come between me and my prayers" she said hysterically, and began to sob. she had scarcely done so when i heard voices without. then langan and the priest entered. "oh, phil," she cried, running to him, "take me away from him: i cant bear----" i turned towards him, and shewed him my dog-tooth in a false smile. he felled me at one stroke, as he might have felled a poplar-tree. "murdher!" exclaimed the priest. "what are you doin, phil?" "he's an informer," sobbed kate. "he came down here to spy on you, uncle, and to try and show that the blessed miracle was a makeshift. i knew it long before he told me, by his insulting ways. he wanted to make love to me." i rose with difficulty from beneath the table where i had lain motionless for a moment. "sir," i said, "i am somewhat dazed by the recent action of mr. langan, whom i beg, the next time he converts himself into a fulling-mill, to do so at the expense of a man more nearly his equal in strength than i. what your niece has told you is partly true. i am indeed the cardinal's spy; and i have already reported to him that the miracle is a genuine one. a committee of gentlemen will wait on you tomorrow to verify it, at my suggestion. i have thought that the proof might be regarded by them as more complete if you were taken by surprise. miss hickey: that i admire all that is admirable in you is but to say that i have a sense of the beautiful. to say that i love you would be mere profanity. mr. langan: i have in my pocket a loaded pistol which i carry from a silly english prejudice against your countrymen. had i been the hercules of the ploughtail, and you in my place, i should have been a dead man now. do not redden: you are safe as far as i am concerned." "let me tell you before you leave my house for good," said father hickey, who seemed to have become unreasonably angry, "that you should never have crossed my threshold if i had known you were a spy: no, not if your uncle were his holiness the pope himself." here a frightful thing happened to me. i felt giddy, and put my hand on my head. three warm drops trickled over it. i instantly became murderous. my mouth filled with blood; my eyes were blinded with it. my hand went involuntarily to the pistol. it is my habit to obey my impulses instantaneously. fortunately the impulse to kill vanished before a sudden perception of how i might miraculously humble the mad vanity in which these foolish people had turned upon me. the blood receded from my ears; and i again heard and saw distinctly. "and let me tell you," langan was saying, "that if you think yourself handier with cold lead than you are with your fists, i'll exchange shots with you, and welcome, whenever you please. father tom's credit is the same to me as my own; and if you say a word against it, you lie." "his credit is in my hands," i said, "i am the cardinal's witness. do you defy me?" "there is the door," said the priest, holding it open before me. "until you can undo the visible work of god's hand your testimony can do no harm to me." "father hickey," i replied, "before the sun rises again upon four mile water, i will undo the visible work of god's hand, and bring the pointing finger of the scoffer upon your altar." i bowed to kate, and walked out. it was so dark that i could not at first see the garden gate. before i found it, i heard through the window father hickey's voice, saying, "i wouldn't for ten pounds that this had happened, phil. he's as mad as a march hare. the cardinal told me so." i returned to my lodging, and took a cold bath to cleanse the blood from my neck and shoulder. the effect of the blow i had received was so severe, that even after the bath and a light meal i felt giddy and languid. there was an alarum-clock on the mantle piece: i wound it; set the alarum for half-past twelve; muffled it so that it should not disturb the people in the adjoining room; and went to bed, where i slept soundly for an hour and a quarter. then the alarum roused me, and i sprang up before i was thoroughly awake. had i hesitated, the desire to relapse into perfect sleep would have overpowered me. although the muscles of my neck were painfully stiff, and my hands unsteady from my nervous disturbance, produced by the interruption of my first slumber, i dressed myself resolutely, and, after taking a draught of cold water, stole out of the house. it was exceedingly dark; and i had some difficulty in finding the cow-house, whence i borrowed a spade, and a truck with wheels, ordinarily used for moving sacks of potatoes. these i carried in my hands until i was beyond earshot of the house, when i put the spade on the truck, and wheeled it along the road to the cemetery. when i approached the water, knowing that no one would dare come thereabout at such an hour i made greater haste, no longer concerning myself about the rattling of the wheels. looking across to the opposite bank, i could see a phosophorescent glow, marking the lonely grave of brimstone billy. this helped me to find the ferry station, where, after wandering a little and stumbling often, i found the boat, and embarked with my implements. guided by the rope, i crossed the water without difficulty; landed; made fast the boat; dragged the truck up the bank; and sat down to rest on the cairn at the grave. for nearly a quarter of an hour i sat watching the patches of jack-o-lantern fire, and collecting my strength for the work before me. then the distant bell of the chapel clock tolled one. i arose; took the spade; and in about ten minutes uncovered the coffin, which smelt horribly. keeping to windward of it, and using the spade as a lever, i contrived with great labor to place it on the truck. i wheeled it without accident to the landing place, where, by placing the shafts of the truck upon the stern of the boat and lifting the foot by main strength, i succeeded in embarking my load after twenty minutes' toil, during which i got covered with clay and perspiration, and several times all but upset the boat. at the southern bank i had less difficulty in getting the coffin ashore, dragging it up to the graveyard. it was now past two o'clock, and the dawn had begun; so that i had no further trouble for want of light. i wheeled the coffin to a patch of loamy soil which i had noticed in the afternoon near the grave of the holy sisters. i had warmed to my work; my neck no longer pained me; and i began to dig vigorously, soon making a shallow trench, deep enough to hide the coffin with the addition of a mound. the chill pearl-coloured morning had by this time quite dissipated the darkness. i could see, and was myself visible, for miles around. this alarmed, and made me impatient to finish my task. nevertheless, i was forced to rest for a moment before placing the coffin in the trench. i wiped my brow and wrists, and again looked about me. the tomb of the holy women, a massive slab supported on four stone spheres, was grey and wet with dew. near it was the thornbush covered with rags, the newest of which were growing gaudy in the radiance which was stretching up from the coast on the east. it was time to finish my work. i seized the truck; laid it alongside the grave; and gradually pried the coffin off with the spade until it rolled over into the trench with a hollow sound like a drunken remonstrance from the sleeper within. i shovelled the earth round and over it, working as fast as possible. in less than a quarter of an hour it was buried. ten minutes more sufficed to make the mound symmetrical, and to clear the adjacent ward. then i flung down the spade; threw up my arms; and vented a sigh of relief and triumph. but i recoiled as i saw that i was standing on a barren common, covered with furze. no product of man's handiwork was near me except my truck and spade and the grave of brimstone billy, now as lonely as before. i turned towards the water. on the opposite bank was the cemetery, with the tomb of the holy women, the thornbush with its rags stirring in the morning breeze, and the broken mud wall. the ruined chapel was there, too, not a stone shaken from its crumbling walls, not a sign to shew that it and its precinct were less rooted in their place than the eternal hills around. i looked down at the grave with a pang of compassion for the unfortunate wolf tone fitzgerald, with whom the blessed would not rest. i was even astonished, though i had worked expressly to this end. but the birds were astir, and the cocks crowing. my landlord was an early riser. i put the spade on the truck again, and hastened back to the farm, where i replaced them in the cow-house. then i stole into the house, and took a clean pair of boots, an overcoat, and a silk hat. these with a change of linen, were sufficient to make my appearance respectable. i went out again, bathed in four mile water, took a last look at the cemetery, and walked to wicklow, whence i traveled by the first train to dublin. * * * * * some months later, at cairo, i received a packet of irish newspapers, and a leading article, cut from the times, on the subject of the miracle. father hickey had suffered the meed of his inhospitable conduct. the committee, arriving at four mile water the day after i left, had found the graveyard exactly where it formerly stood. father hickey, taken by surprise, had attempted to defend himself by a confused statement, which led the committee to declare finally that the miracle was a gross imposture. the times, commenting on this after adducing a number of examples of priestly craft, remarked, "we are glad to learn that the rev. mr. hickey has been permanently relieved of his duties as the parish priest of four mile water by his ecclesiastical superior. it is less gratifying to have to record that it has been found possible to obtain two hundred signatures to a memorial embodying the absurd defence offered to the committee, and expressing unabated confidence in the integrity of mr. hickey." london, . * * * * * transcriber's notes: pg. : statute changed to statue (there was a statue of the virgin) pg. : dangenerous changed to dangerous (are dangerous for you in your present morbid state.) all other questionable or quaint spellings have been kept as in the original book. the legend of sister beatrix charles nodier ( - ) not far from the highest peak in the jura, but descending a little down its slope facing west, one could still see, going on for half a century ago, a mass of ruins that had belonged to the church and the convent of our lady of the flowering thorns. it is at one end of a deep and narrow gorge, much more sheltered to the north, which produces each year, thanks to its favourable aspect, the rarest flowers of that region. half a league from there, from the opposite end of the gorge, the debris of an ancient manor house is visible which has itself disappeared like the house of god. we only know that it used to be lived in by a family renowned for its feats of arms and that the last of the noble knights to bear its name died in winning back the tomb of jesus christ for christians without an heir to propagate his line. his inconsolable widow would not abandon a place so conducive to the upkeep of her melancholy, but the rumour of her piety spread far and wide as did her works of charity and a glorious tradition has perpetuated her memory for future generations of christians. the people, who have forgotten all her other names, still call her the saint. on one of those days when winter, coming to an end, suddenly relaxes its rigour under the influence of a temperate sky, the saint was walking, as usual, down the long driveway leading to her castle, her mind given over to pious meditations. she came in this way to the thorny bushes that still mark its end, and saw, with no little surprise, that one of these shrubs had taken on already all its springtime finery. she hastened to get nearer to it in order to assure herself that this semblance was not produced by a remnant of snow that had failed to melt, and, delighted to see it crowned, in effect, by an innumerable multitude of beautiful little white stars with rays of crimson, she carefully detached a branch to hang it in her oratory before a picture of the virgin mary she had held in great reverence since childhood, and went back joyfully to take to her this innocent offering. whether this modest tribute really pleased the divine mother of jesus or whether a special pleasure, which it is difficult to define, is reserved for the least outpouring of a tender heart to the object of its affection, never had the soul of the chatelaine been as open to more ineffable emotions than those she felt that mild evening. she promised herself, with a joy that was ingenuous, to go back every day to the bush in bloom in order to daily bring back a fresh garland. we may well believe that she was faithful to that promise. one day, however, when her care for the poor and sick had kept her busy longer than usual, it was in vain that she hurried to reach her wild flowerbed. night got there before her, and it is said that she started to regret having let herself be taken over quite so much by this solitary place, when a clarity calm and pure, like that which comes to us with daylight, suddenly showed her all her flowering thorns. she stopped walking for a moment, struck by the thought that this light might emanate from a camp fire made by bandits, for it was impossible to imagine it having been produced by myriads of glow-worms, hatched before their time. the year was not far gone enough for the warm and peaceful nights of summer. nevertheless, her self-imposed obligation came to mind and gave her courage. she walked lightly, holding her breath, towards the bush with the white flowers, seized in a trembling hand a branch which seemed to fall of itself between her fingers, so little resistance it offered to her, and went back to her manor house without daring to look behind her. for the whole of the subsequent night, the saintly lady pondered this phenomenon without being able to explain it, and, as she was determined to solve this mystery, no sooner than the following day, at the same time in the evening, she went back to the bushes with a faithful servant and her old personal chaplain. the gentle light shone there as it had the day before, and seemed, as they drew near to it, to grow brighter and more radiant. they stopped then and knelt down, as it seemed to them this light was coming down from heaven. after they had done this, the good priest got up by himself and took a few respectful steps towards the flowering thorns singing a hymn of the church and brushed them aside easily for they opened like a veil. the spectacle that offered itself to their sight at that moment inspired such admiration in them that they stayed for a long time without moving, totally filled with joy and gratitude. it was an image of the virgin mary, simply carved in common wood, brought to life by colours given to it by a brush that was rudimentary and wearing clothes that gave a naive idea of luxury, but it was from her that emanated the wondrous splendour that illumined these precincts. "hail mary, full of grace," said the chaplain, who had now prostrated himself, at last, and, to judge by the harmonious murmur which promptly arose through all the woods thereabouts after he had uttered these words, one could have thought them taken up by a choir of angels. he then solemnly proceeded to recite those admirable litanies in which faith has, unknowingly, spoken the language of the most elevated poetry, and, following on from new acts of worship, he picked the statue up so as to take it to the castle, where it was to find a sanctuary worthy of it, while the lady and the servant, hands joined together and with heads slightly bowed, slowly came after, merging their prayers with his. i do not need to say that the wonderful image was placed in an elegant niche, that it was surrounded by odorous candles, bathed in perfumes, laden with a rich crown, and acknowledged, till half way through the night, by the hymns of the faithful. but, in the morning, it could no longer be found and all the christians who, by gaining her, had been filled with such pure happiness, were much alarmed. what secret sin could have brought down this disgrace on the manor house of the saint? why had the virgin mary left it? what new resting place had she chosen? we may doubtless guess. the blessed mother of jesus preferred the modest shadow of her favourite bushes to the dazzle of an earthly dwelling. she had gone back, in the midst of the coolness of the woods, to taste the peace of solitude and the sweet exhalations of the flowers. all the people who lived in the castle went there at dusk and found her there, even more resplendent than she had been the previous night. they fell on their knees in respectful silence. "potent queen of angels!" said the chatelaine. "this is the abode you prefer. your will be done." and indeed, not long afterwards, a shrine embellished by all the adornments that an inspired architect could lavish on it in those centuries of feeling and imagination rose around that venerated image. the great and good of the earth wanted to enrich it with their gifts. kings endowed it with a tabernacle of pure gold. the fame of our lady's miracles spread far and wide throughout the christian world and summoned to the valley a multitude of pious women who dwelt there according to a monastic rule. the saintly widow, more touched than ever by the light of grace, could not refuse the title of mother superior of this convent. she died there full of days after a life of good works, good examples and sacrifices which rose up like a perfume from the foot of our lady's altars. such was, according to the handwritten records of the province, the origin of the church and convent of our lady of the flowering thorns. two centuries had passed since the death of the saint, and a young virgin in her extended family was still, according to custom, the sister custodian of the holy tabernacle, which means that she took care of it, and that it was her job to open the tabernacle on feast days when the miraculous image was shown to the faithful. she it was who had the care of maintaining the ever new elegance of our lady's ornaments, of removing the dust from them and the harmful insects, of picking, to compose her crown or to adorn her altar, the most gracious flowers in the garden in their growth and the most chaste in their colour, forming chains, garlands and bouquets that attracted in their turn, through the great stained glass window open to the rising sun, a multitude of purple and azure butterflies, aerial flowers indicative of solitude. among these tributes the flowering thorn was always given preference when in season, and, imitated in lieu of all the others with an art that the good nuns had stolen the secret of from nature, it rested on the breast of the beautiful madonna as a thick clump knotted with a silver ribbon. the butterflies themselves might have slipped up sometimes, but they did not dare to dwell on these celestial flowers which were not made for them. the sister custodian at that time was called beatrix. eighteen years old at most, she had scarcely been told how pretty she was, for she had entered our lady's house when she was only fifteen, as pure and unspoilt as her flowers. there is a happy or disastrous age at which a young girl's heart understands that it was created to love, and beatrix had reached it. but this need, initially vague and anxious, had only made her duties more dear to her. unable to explain then the secret motions that agitated her so much, she had taken them to be the symptoms of a pious fervour which accuses itself of not being ardent enough, and which feels obliged to love enthusiastically and to the point of madness. the unknown object of these loving tendencies eluded her lack of experience, and among the objects that occupied the senses of her ingenuous heart, if we can put it like that, our lady alone seemed to her worthy of that deep adoration for which life itself could scarcely suffice. this cult of every passing moment had become the one thing her mind dwelt on, the one thing that charmed her solitude. it filled even her dreams with mysterious languors and ineffable acts of worship. she was often to be seen stretched out in front of the tabernacle, breathing out to her divine patron prayers that were interspersed with sobs, or wetting the space around the altar with her tears, and the celestial virgin smiled no doubt, from the top of her eternal throne, at that happy and tender mistake on the part of the innocent, for the holy virgin loved beatrix and liked to be loved by her. besides, she had perhaps discerned in beatrix's heart that she always would be loved by her. about that time there occurred an event that raised the veil under which beatrix's secret had remained so long hidden to herself. a young lord in those parts, having been attacked by murderous footpads, was left in the forest for dead, and, though he had only preserved at most the feeble semblance of a life about to be extinguished, the convent servants transported him to their infirmary. as the daughters of chatelaines at that time were, from their earliest years, in receipt of formulas and recipes with respect to the healing art, beatrix was sent by her sisters to the bedside of the dying man to help him. she put into practice all she had learned of that useful body of knowledge, but she counted more on the intercession of the miraculous virgin mary, and her long and laborious vigils, divided between the cares of a sick nurse and the prayers of a servant of mary, obtained for her all the success she had hoped for. raymond re-opened his eyes to the light and, in doing so, recognized his benefactress. he had already seen her occasionally in the very castle she had been born in. "what's this?" he cried. "is it you, beatrix? is it you i loved so much in my childhood years and that the too soon forgotten acknowledgement of that love by your father and mine had permitted me to hope for as a wife? what grievous twist of fate has let me see you again, chained by the links of a life which is not made for you, and cut off, without any going back, from that brilliant world that you were the principal ornament of? if you yourself chose this state of solitude and abnegation, beatrix, i swear to you, you have my word, that it was because you did not yet know your own heart. the commitment that you made in your then ignorance of those feelings that are natural to all that breathes, is null and void before god as it is before men. you have carelessly betrayed your destiny as a wife, as a lover, and as a mother! you condemned yourself, you poor, dear child, to long days of boredom, bitterness, disgust that no pleasure henceforth will be able to assuage the long sadness of! it is however so sweet to love, so sweet to be loved, so sweet to live again through what one loves in the objects that one loves! the pure joys of affection add to life twofold, threefold, fourfold. what tenderness there is in having a friend who worships you, who enhances each moment with ever new causes for pleasure, who only lives to cherish you or please you. the innocent caresses of pretty children, so fresh, gracious, happy to be alive, and that a barbarous whim would then have sent into oblivion! this is what you have lost! this is what you would have lost, beatrix, if blind obstinacy keeps you in the abyss you have plunged in! no," he continued even more exaltedly, "you will not be ignorant of the plans of your god and mine, who has only brought us back together that we may be forever reunited! you will willingly submit yourself to the vows of a love that begs to enlighten you! you will be raymond's wife as you are his sister and his beloved! do not turn away from him your eyes full of tears! do not pull back your hand that trembles in his! tell him that you are willing to follow him and never to leave him again!" beatrix did not answer. she could not put into words what she felt. she escaped from raymond's weakened arms and went away troubled, trembling and distraught to fall at the feet of the virgin, her consolation and her support. she wept as she had previously, but now it was no longer with an aimless and obscure emotion, but with a feeling stronger than piety, stronger than shame, stronger, alas, than that holy virgin whose aid she called upon in vain, and her tears, this time, were hot and bitter. many days in a row she was seen, prostrate and a supplicant, and no-one was surprised because all of them in the convent knew of her passionate devotion to our lady of the flowering thorns. she spent the rest of her time in the sick room of the wounded man whose recovery now no longer depended on assiduous nursing. one night when the church was closed, when all the nuns had gone back to their cells, when everything, including prayer, was silent, beatrix went slowly into the choir stalls, put her lamp down on the altar, opened the door of the tabernacle with a trembling hand, turned away with a shiver, lowering her eyes, as if she were afraid that the queen of the angels would strike her down with a look and threw herself on her knees. she wanted to speak and the words died on her lips or were strangled by her sobs. she drew her veil and her hands to her brow. she tried to compose herself and calm down. she made one final effort. she managed to tear from her heart a few mixed up sounds, without knowing if she was uttering a prayer or a blasphemy. "oh celestial benefactress of my youth!" she said. "you that i have so long loved alone, and who will always remain the sovereign of my soul, whatever the unworthy sharing i involve you in! mary! heavenly mary! why have you forsaken me? why have you allowed your beatrix to fall prey to the awful passions of hell? you know i have not given in without a struggle to the passion that devours me! today the die is cast, mary, and cast forever! i shall serve you no longer, for i am no longer worthy to serve you. i shall go far away to hide from you the eternal regret my sin fills me with, the eternal bereavement of my innocence which you are unable to restore to me. let me still now worship you! have mercy on the tears i shed and which at least prove how remote i have been from the cowardly betrayals of my senses! welcome the last of my tributes as you have welcomed all the others! if zeal for your altars is worth some gratitude on your part, send death to this wretch who implores you for it before she leaves you!" having spoken these words, beatrix got up, and, with fear and trembling, approached the image of the holy virgin. she adorned it with new flowers, seized those that she had just replaced, and, ashamed for the first time in her life of the pious use she made of them that she no longer had the right to, she pressed them to her heart, in a scapular that had been blessed, so as never to part with them. after that she gazed one last time at the tabernacle, cried out in terror and fled. the following night a coach whisked away at high speed from the convent the handsome wounded knight and a young nun in breach of her vows who accompanied him. the first year that succeeded this event was almost entirely given over to the exaltation of a love requited. the world itself for beatrix was a new experience of pleasures that were inexhaustible. love multiplied around her all the means of seduction able to perpetuate her error and encompass her loss. she only emerged from voluptuous dreams in order to awake amid the joy of banquets, among entertainments devised by strolling players and the concerts of minstrels. her life was one long crazy feast in which the serious voice of reflexion, stifled by an orgy's clamours, could only have struggled to make itself heard. and yet she had not quite forgotten mary. more than once, as she prepared to dress, her scapular had opened at the touch of her fingers. more than once she had let drop on the withered posy of the virgin a gaze and a tear. prayer had come more than once to her lips, like a hidden flame lurking under ash and embers, but it had been extinguished there by the kisses of her abductor, and, even in her ecstasy, a voice still told her that a prayer might have saved her! it was not long before she felt the only lasting love is that which is purified by religion, that only the love of our lord and mary gives the lie to the ups and downs of our emotions. alone among our affections, it seems to grow and get stronger with time, while other loves burn so brightly and are spent so quickly in our hearts of ash. nevertheless she loved raymond as much as she could love anyone, but a day came when she saw that raymond no longer loved her. that day made her foresee the even more atrocious day when she would be quite abandoned by the man for whom she herself had abandoned the honours of the altar, and that dreaded day also came. beatrix now found herself, alas, with no-one to turn to on earth or in heaven. she sought in vain to console herself with memories and to take refuge in hopes. the flowers in the scapular had withered like those of her happiness. the well spring of her tears and her prayer had dried up. the fate that beatrix had made for herself had been realised. the unfortunate woman accepted her damnation. the higher the fall on the path to virtue, the more ignominious it is, the more irreparable it is, and beatrix had fallen from on high. at first her opprobrium frightened her, and then she ended up by getting used to it, the spring in her soul having broken. fifteen years went by like this, and for fifteen years the guardian angel that baptism had granted to her cradle, the angel with the heart of a brother who had loved her so much, covered his eyes with his wings and wept. oh! how many treasures those fleeting years carried away with them! innocence, modesty, youth, beauty, love, those roses in life that only flower once, and, in addition, conscience that compensates for all other losses! the jewels that had formerly adorned her, the impious tributes that debauchery pays to crime, provided her, for a time, with a resource too apt to dwindle. she was left alone, abandoned, an object of contempt for others as for herself, given over to the insolent disdain of vice, and hateful to virtue, a repellent example of shame and misery that mothers showed their children to turn them away from sin! she wearied of being a burden to pity, of only getting alms that a pious repugnance often nailed to the hands of charity, of only being helped on one side by people whose brows blushed to give her a piece of bread. one day she wrapped herself in her rags, which had been when new luxurious clothes. she decided to ask for her daily bread or a bed for the night from those who had not known her! she flattered herself that she could hide her infamy behind her wretchedness. she set out, the poor beggar, possessing nothing but the flowers that she had formerly taken from the virgin's bouquet, falling now, one by one, into dust under her dried up lips! beatrix was still young, but shame and hunger had left on her brow the imprint of those hideous marks that reveal premature ageing. when her pale and mute face timidly begged help from passers-by, when her white and delicate hand opened jerkily to receive their gifts, there were none who did not feel that her life must have been very different at some stage. those who were the most indifferent to her halted before her with a harsh look that seemed to say: oh my daughter! how was it you fell from what you were? and yet her own look could no longer reply to them, for it had been a long time now since she had been able to weep. she walked on and on, on and on: her journey seemed as though it would only ever end with her death. one particular day she had been climbing since sun-up, at a bare mountain's back, a rough and rugged path, without a single house in sight to assuage her weariness. all she had eaten were some flavourless roots torn from cracks in the rocks. her shoes, worn to shreds, had just come away from her bloodied feet. she felt herself faint with fatigue and need when, night having come, she was all of a sudden struck by the appearance of a long line of lights that were indicative of a large building. towards these lights she made her way with all the strength left to her, but, at the chime of a silvery bell, the sound of which awoke in her heart a strange and vague memory, all the lights went out at once, and all that now remained around her were silence and night. she nevertheless took a few more steps with outstretched arms, and her trembling hands rested on a closed door. she leaned against it for a moment as if to catch her breath and tried to hold onto it so as not to fall. her debilitated fingers let her down. they gave way under the weight of her body. "oh holy mary!" she cried. "why did i leave you?" and the unhappy beatrix passed out on the threshold. may the wrath of heaven go easy on the guilty! nights like this expiate a whole lifetime of sin! the keen coolness of the morning had scarcely begun to bring back to life in her a blurred and painful sense of her own identity, when she perceived that she was not alone. a woman knelt at her side was raising her head carefully, and staring at her with anxious curiosity, waiting for her to come round completely. "god be praised," said the good sister at the convent gate, "for having sent to us so early in the day an act of mercy to perform and a sadness to alleviate! it's a happy omen for the glorious feast of the holy virgin that we celebrate today! but how is it, my dear child, that you did not think to pull on the bell or to use the knocker? at no time would your sisters in jesus christ not have been ready to receive you. well, there we are! don't answer me just yet, you poor lost sheep! fortify yourself with this beef broth that i warmed up in a hurry as soon as i saw you. taste this full-bodied wine that will put the heat back in your stomach and help you move your sore limbs again. let me see that you're better. drink, drink down all of it, and now, before you get up, if you don't feel strong enough to yet, put this cloak on i've thrown over your shoulders. put those little, oh so cold hands of yours in mine so that i can restore blood and life to them. can you feel already the circulation coming back into your fingers as i breathe on them? oh! you'll soon be yourself again!" beatrix, imbued with tender feeling, grasped the hands of the worthy nun, and pressed them several times to her lips. "i am myself again," she said, "and i feel well enough to go to thank god for the favour he has done me by guiding my steps to this holy house. only, so that i can include it in my prayers, can you please tell me where i am?" "and where could you be," the keeper of the gate replied, "if it is not at the convent of our lady of the flowering thorns, since there is no other monastic building in this wilderness for more than five leagues around." "our lady of the flowering thorns!" exclaimed beatrix with a cry of joy followed immediately by marks of the deepest consternation: "our lady of the flowering thorns!" she repeated, letting her head fall onto her bosom. "may the lord have mercy on me!" "what's this, my daughter?" said the charitable angel of mercy. "didn't you know? it's true that you seem to come from far away, for i have never seen a lady's clothing that looks like yours. but our lady of the flowering thorns does not limit her protection to those who live locally. you must know, if you have heard speak of her, that she is good to everyone." "i know her, and i have served her," answered beatrix, "but i come from far away, as you say, reverend mother, and you must not wonder that my eyes did not recognize at first this place of peace and blessing. and yet here is the church and the convent, and the thorn bushes where i gathered so many flowers. even now they still flower! but i was so young when i left them! it was during the time," she continued, lifting her forehead to heaven with that determined look that imparts self-denial to christian remorse, "it was during the time when sister beatrix was the custodian of the holy basilica. do you remember that time, reverend mother?" "how could i have forgotten it, my child, since sister beatrix has never stopped being the custodian of the holy basilica? she has stayed among us till today, and will remain for a long time, i hope, a subject of edification for the whole community, since, apart from the protection of the holy virgin, we know of no surer support under heaven." "i'm not talking about her," beatrix broke in, sighing bitterly, "i'm talking about another beatrix who ended up living a sinful life, and who occupied the same post sixteen years ago." "god will not punish you for those demented words," said the nun as she drew her to her breast. "the distress and the illness that have affected your mind, have troubled your memory with these sad visions. i have lived in this convent for more than sixteen years, and i have never known anyone in charge of looking after the holy basilica apart from sister beatrix. being as you are determined to perform an act of worship for our lady, while i'm making a bed up for you, go, my sister, go to the foot of the tabernacle. you will find beatrix there already, and you will recognize her easily, for divine goodness has allowed her not to lose in ageing a single one of her youthful graces. i'll come back for you presently and won't leave you then till you're completely well again." having spoken these words the keeper of the gate made her way back to the cloister. beatrix stumbled as far as the steps leading up to the church, knelt down on the approach to them and banged her head against it. then she grew a little bolder, got up, and, from pillar to pillar, went up to the grille where she once more fell upon her knees. through the cloud that had darkened her vision she had discerned the sister custodian standing in front of the tabernacle. little by little the sister drew nearer to her as she made her daily inspection of the holy place, rekindling the flame in burnt-out candles, or replacing the garlands of the day before with new garlands. beatrix could not believe her eyes. this sister was herself, not as age, vice and despair had made her, but as she must have been in the innocent days of her youth. was it an illusion produced by remorse? was it a divine punishment, a foretaste of those reserved for her by a celestial curse? racked by doubt, she hid her head in her hands, and rested it motionless against the bars of the grille, stammering from quivering lips the most tender of her prayers from time gone by. and yet the sister custodian kept on moving. already the folds of her clothes had brushed against the bars. beatrix, overcome with emotion, did not dare even to breathe. "it's you, dear beatrix," said the sister in a voice for the dulcet tones of which there is no word in any language known to man. "i don't need to see you to know who you are, for i hear your prayers now as i heard them then. i've been waiting for you for a long time, but, as i was sure you would return, i took your place the day you left me, so that no-one would know that you'd gone. you know now what they are, the pleasures and happiness whose picture so seduced you, and you will not go away again. you're here, between ourselves, for the duration and for all eternity. come back with confidence to the position that you occupied among my daughters. you will find in your cell, the way to which you have not forgotten, the habit that you left there, and you will put on with it your primordial innocence, of which it is the emblem. i owed to your love a grace that was out of the ordinary and which i have obtained for your repentance. farewell, sister custodian of mary! love mary as she has loved you!" it was indeed mary, and when beatrix, distraught, raised towards her eyes flooded with tears, when she stretched out to her her trembling arms making to her an act of thanksgiving broken by her sobs, she saw the holy virgin go up the steps of the altar, re-open the door to the tabernacle, and sit down again there in her heavenly glory under her golden halo and under her festoons of thorn flowers. beatrix did not go back down to the choir without emotion. she went back to see her companions whose faith she had betrayed, and who had aged, immune to reproach, in the practice of an austere duty. she slid among her sisters lowering her head, and ready to humble herself at the first shout to announce her fault. her heart greatly troubled, she lent an attentive ear to their voices, and she heard nothing. as none of them had noticed her departure, none of them paid any heed to her return. she threw herself at the feet of the holy virgin, who had never looked so beautiful to her, and who seemed to be smiling. in the dreams of her illusory life, she had grasped nothing that came anywhere near such happiness. the divine feast of mary (i think i have already said that this took place on the feast of the assumption) was celebrated in a mixture of of contemplation and ecstasy, the finest moments of which far excelled past celebrations of the feastday by this community of virgins, without stain or blemish like their queen. some had seen miraculous lights emanating from the tabernacle, others had heard songs of angels mixed in with their pious canticles, and had, out of respect, stopped their singing so as not to disturb the celestial harmony. it was said that there had been that day a feast in paradise as there had been in the convent of the flowering thorns, and, due to a phenomenon foreign to that season, all the thorn bushes in the area had burst into flower again so that, outside as well as inside, there were only the scents of spring. it was because a soul had come back to the bosom of the lord, shorn of all the defects and ignominious shortcomings of our human condition, and there is no feastday in heaven more agreeable to saints there. only one thing disturbed for a moment the innocent joy of this flock of virginal doves. a poor woman, sickly and ill, had been sitting in the morning on the threshold of the convent. the nun at the entrance had seen her and had partially relieved her suffering by making up for her a nice warm bed for her to rest her weary limbs in, weakened by privation, and, since then, she had looked for her in vain. this wretched creature had disappeared without a trace, but it was thought that sister beatrix might have seen her in the church where she had gone to pray. "have no fear, my sisters," said beatrix, moved to tears by this tender concern on their part. "have no fear," she went on, as she pressed the gatekeeper sister to her bosom, "i have seen that poor woman and i know what has become of her. she is well, my sisters, she is happy, happier than she deserves, and happier than any of you could have hoped for her to be." this answer allayed all their fears, but it was noted because it was the first severe word to come from beatrix's mouth. after that, the whole of beatrix's life went by like a single day, like that day in the future that is promised to the lord's elect, without boredom, without regret, without fear, without any emotions, for sensitive hearts cannot wholly do without them, other than those of piety towards god and charity towards man. she lived for a century without seeming to have aged, for only the soul's bad passions add years to the body. the life of the good is an eternal youth. beatrix died nevertheless, or rather calmly fell asleep in that ephemeral sleep of the tomb that separates time from eternity. the church honoured her memory by crowning her with a posthumous glory. it made her a saint. bzovius, who has examined this story with that solemn critical spirit that canonical writers offer so many examples of, is quite convinced that she was worthy of this honour by reason of the tender fidelity she showed to our lady, for it is, he said, purity of love that makes saints, and i would affirm, not with much authority admittedly, but in the sincerity of my mind and heart, that, as long as the school of luther and voltaire cannot offer me a more poignant story than hers, i will agree with the opinion expressed by bzovius. supernatural religion: an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation. in three volumes. vol. iii. complete edition. carefully revised. london: longmans, green, and co., . [the right of translation is reserved.] "credulity is as real, if not so great, a sin as unbelief." archbishop trench. "the abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair." canon lightfoot. pg editor's note: this file has been provided with an image of the original scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the html file. nearly every page in the text has many greek passages which have been indicated where they occur by [���] as have many complex tables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. some of the pages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is taken up with complex footnotes in english, greek and hebrew. the reader may click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page with the footnotes. �dw supernatural religion: an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation part iv. the acts of the apostles chapter i. the external evidence before we proceed to examine the evidence for miracles and the reality of divine revelation which is furnished by the last historical book of the new testament, entitled the "acts of the apostles," it is well that we should briefly recall to mind some characteristics of the document, which most materially affect the value of any testimony emanating from it. whilst generally asserting the resurrection of jesus, and his bodily ascension, regarding which indeed it adds fresh details, this work presents to us a new cycle of miracles, and so profusely introduces supernatural agency into the history of the early church that, in comparison with it, the gospels seem almost sober narratives. the apostles are instructed and comforted by visions and revelations, and they, and all who believe, are filled with the holy spirit and speak with other tongues. the apostles are delivered from { } prison and from bonds by angels or by an earthquake. men fall dead or are smitten with blindness at their rebuke. they heal the sick, raise the dead, and handkerchiefs brought from their bodies cure diseases and expel evil spirits. as a general rule, any document so full of miraculous episodes and supernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be characterized as fabulous and incredible, and would not, by any sober-minded reader, be for a moment accepted as historical. there is no other testimony for these miracles. let the reader endeavour to form some conception of the nature and amount of evidence necessary to establish the truth of statements antecedently so incredible, and compare it with the testimony of this solitary and anonymous document, the character and value of which we shall now proceed more closely to examine. it is generally admitted, and indeed it is undeniable, that no distinct and unequivocal reference to the acts of the apostles, and to luke as their author, occurs in the writings of fathers before one by irenæus( ) about the end of the second century. passages are, however, pointed out in earlier writings as indicating the use and consequent existence of our document, all of which we shall now examine. { } several of these occur in the "epistle to the corinthian s," ascribed to clement of rome. the first, immediately compared with the passage to which it is supposed to be a reference,( ) is as follows:-- [------] the words of the epistle are not a quotation, but merely occur in the course of an address. they do not take the form of an axiom, but are a comment on the conduct of the corinthians, which may have been suggested either by written or oral tradition, or by moral maxims long before current in heathen philosophy. it is unnecessary to enter minutely into this, however, or to indicate the linguistic differences between the two passages, for one point alone settles the question. in the acts: the saying, "it is more blessed to give than to receive," is distinctly introduced as a quotation of { } "words of the lord jesus," and the exhortation "to remember" them, conveys the inference that they were well known. they must either have formed part of gospels now no longer extant, as they are not found in ours, or have been familiar as the unwritten tradition of sayings of the master. in either case, if the passage in the epistle be a reference to these words at all, it cannot reasonably be maintained that it must necessarily have been derived from a work which itself distinctly quotes the words from another source. it would be against every principle of evidence, under such circumstances, to affirm the passage to be an allusion to this special work, of whose previous existence we have no independent evidence.( ) the slight coincidence in the expression, without indication that any particular passage is in the mind of the author, and without any mention of the acts, therefore, is no evidence of the existence of that work. a few critics point to some parts of the following passage as showing acquaintance with acts:--"through jealousy paul also pointed out the way to the prize of patience, having borne chains seven times, having been put to flight, having been stoned; having become a preacher both in the east and in the west, he gained the noble renown due to his faith; having taught the whole world righteousness, and come to the extremity of the west, and having suffered martyrdom by command of the rulers, he was thus removed from the world and went to the holy place, having become a most eminent { } example of patience."( ) the slightest impartial consideration, however, must convince any one that this passage does not indicate the use of the "acts of the apostles." the epistle speaks of seven imprisonments, of some of which the acts make no mention, and this must, therefore, have been derived from another source.( ) the reference to his "coming to the extremity of the west" [------], whatever interpretation be put upon it, and to his death, obviously carries the history further than the acts, and cannot have been derived from that document. the last passage, which, it is affirmed,( ) shows acquaintance with the acts of the apostles is the following: "but what shall we say regarding david who hath obtained a good report [------]? unto whom [------] god said: 'i found a man after mine own heart, david, the son of jesse: in everlasting mercy i anointed him.'"( ) this is said to be derived from acts xiii. : "and when he removed him he raised up to them david for king; to whom also he { } gave testimony [------]: i found david the son of jesse, a man after mine own heart, who will do all my will."( ) the passage, however, is compounded of two quotations loosely made from the septuagint version of the old testament, from which all the quotations in the epistle are taken. ps. lxxxviii. : "i found david my servant; in holy mercy i anointed him."( ) and sam. xiii. : "a man after his own heart."( ) clement of alexandria quotes this passage from the epistle, and for "in everlasting mercy" reads "with holy oil" [------] as in the psalm.( ) although, therefore, our alexandrian ms. of the epistle has the reading which we have given above, even if we suppose that the alexandrian clement may have found a more correct version in his ms., the argument would not be affected. the whole similarity lies in the insertion of "the son of jesse," but this was a most common addition to any mention of david, and by the completion of the passage from the psalm, the omission of "who will do all my will," the peculiar phrase of the acts, as well as the difference of introductory expressions, any connection between the two is severed, and it is apparent that the quotation of the epistle may legitimately be referred to the septuagint,( ) with which it agrees much more closely { } than with the acts. in no case could such slight coincidences prove acquaintance with the acts of the apostles.( ) only one passage of the "epistle of barnabas" is referred to by any one( ) as indicating acquaintance with the acts. it is as follows, c. : "if therefore the son of god, being lord, and about to judge quick and dead [------] suffered," &c. this is compared with acts x. ... "and to testify that it is he who has been appointed by god judge of quick and dead" [------]. lardner, who compares the expression of the epistle with acts, equally compares it with that in tim. iv. ... "and christ jesus who is about to judge the quick and dead" [------], to which it is more commonly referred,( ) and pet. iv. ... "to him who is ready to judge quick and dead" [------]. he adds, however: "it is not possible to say, what text he refers to, though that in timothy has (he same words. but perhaps there is no proof that he refers to any. this was an article known to every common christian; whereas this writer (whoever he be) was able to teach the christian religion, and that without respect to any written gospels or epistles."( ) it is scarcely { } necessary to add anything to this. there is of course no trace of the use of acts in the epistle.( ) it is asserted that there is a "clear allusion"( ) to acts in the pastor of hermas. the passages may be compared as follows:-- [------] the slightest comparison of these passages suffices to show that the one is not dependent on the other. the old testament is full of passages in which the name of the lord is magnified as the only source of safety and salvation. in the pauline epistles likewise there are numerous passages of a similar tenour. for instance, the passage from joel ii. , is quoted rom. x. : "for whosoever shall call on the name of the lord shall be saved" [------]( ) there was in fact no formula more current either amongst the jews or in the early church; and there is no legitimate ground for tracing such an expression to the acts of the apostles.( ) { } the only other passage which is quoted( ) as indicating acquaintance with acts is the following, which we at once contrast with the supposed parallel:-- [------] here again a formula is employed which is common throughout the new testament, and which, applied as it is here to those who were persecuted, we have reason to believe was in general use in the early church. it is almost unnecessary to point out any examples. everywhere "the name" of god or of jesus is the symbol used to represent the concrete idea, and in the heavenly jerusalem of the apocalypse the servants of god and of the lamb are to have "his name" on their foreheads. the one expression, however, which is peculiar in the passage: "counted worthy,"--in the acts [------], and in the pastor [------],--is a perfectly natural and simple one, the use of which cannot be exclusively conceded to the acts of the apostles. it is found frequently in the pauline epistles, as for instance in thes. i. , where, after saying that they give thanks to god for them and glory in the churches of god for the patience and faith with which the thessalonians endure { } persecutions, the writer continues: "which is a token of the righteous judgment of god, that ye may he counted worthy [------] of the kingdom of god, for which ye also suffer [------];" and again, in the same chapter, v. , , "wherefore we also pray always for you that our god may count you worthy [------] of the calling, and fulfil all good pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power; _that the name of our lord jesus may he glorified in you_ [------]" &c. the passage we are examining cannot be traced to the "acts of the apostles."( ) it must be obvious to all that the pastor of hennas does not present any evidence even of the existence of the acts at the time it was written.( ) only two passages in the epistles of pseudo-ignatius are pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the acts, and even these are not advanced by many critics. we have already so fully discussed these epistles that no more need now be said. we must pronounce them spurious in all their recensions and incapable of affording evidence upon any point earlier than towards the end of the second century. those, however, who would still receive as genuine the testimony of the three syriac epistles must declare that they do not present any trace of the existence of the acts, inasmuch as the two passages adduced to show the use of that work do not occur in those letters. they are found in the shorter recension of the epistles to the smyrnæans and philadelphians. we might, therefore, altogether refuse to examine the { } passages, but in order to show the exact nature of the case made out by apologists, we shall briefly refer to them. we at once compare the first with its supposed parallel.( ) [------] there is nothing in this passage which bears any peculiar analogy to the acts, for the statement is a simple reference to a tradition which is also embodied both in the third synoptic( ) and in the fourth gospel;( ) and the mere use of the common words [------] and [------] could not prove anything. the passage occurs in the epistle immediately after a quotation, said by jerome to be taken from the gospel according to the hebrews, relating an appearance of jesus to "those who were with peter," in which jesus is represented as making them handle him in order to convince them that he is not an incorporeal spirit.( ) the quotation bears considerable affinity to the narrative in the third synoptic (xxiv. ), at the close of which jesus is represented as eating with the disciples. it is highly probable that the gospel from which the writer of the epistle quoted contained the same detail, to which this would naturally be a direct { } descriptive reference. in any case it affords no evidence of the existence of the acts of the apostles.( ) the second passage, which is still more rarely advanced,( ) is as follows:-- [------] the only point of coincidence between these two passages is the use of the word "wolves." in the epistle the expression is [------], whilst in acts it is [------]. now the image is substantially found in the sermon on the mount, one form of which is given in the first synoptic, vii. , , and which undeniably must have formed part of many of the gospels which are mentioned by the writer of the third synoptic. we find justin martyr twice quoting another form of the saying: "for many [------] shall arrive in my name, outwardly indeed clothed in sheep's skins, but inwardly being ravening wolves [------]."( ) the use of the term as applied to men was certainly common in the early church. the idea expressed in the epistle is more closely found in timothy iii. ff., in the description of those who are to come in the last days, and who will (v. ) "creep into the houses and make captive [------] silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." { } the passage cannot be traced to the acts,( ) and the ignatian epistles, spurious though they be, do not present any evidence of the existence of that work.( ) only two sentences are pointed out in the "epistle of polycarp" as denoting acquaintance with the acts. the first and only one of these on which much stress is laid is the following:( ) [------] it will be obvious to all that, along with much similarity, there is likewise divergence between these sentences. in the first phrase the use of [------] in the epistle separates it from the supposed parallel, in which the word is [------]. the number of passages in the pauline epistles corresponding with it are legion (e.g. cor. iv. , ephes. i. ). the second member of the sentence, which is of course the more important, is in reality, we contend, a reference to the very psalm quoted in acts immediately after the verse before us, couched in not unusual phraseology. psalm xvi. (sept. xv.), reads: { } "for thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" [------].( ) in ps. xviii. (sept. xvii. ) we have, "the pains of hell [------] compassed me about."( ) the difference between the [------] of the epistle and the [------] of the acts is so distinct that, finding a closer parallel in the psalms to which reference is obviously made in both works, it is quite impossible to trace the phrase necessarily to the acts. such a passage cannot prove the use of that work,( ) but, if it could, we might inquire what evidence for the authorship and trustworthiness of the acts could be deduced from the circumstance?( ) the second passage, referred to by a few writers,( ) is as follows:-- [------] it is not necessary to do more than contrast these passages to show how little the "epistle of polycarp" can witness for the "acts of the apostles." we have already examined another supposed reference to this very passage, and the expressions in the epistle, whilst scarcely presenting a single point of linguistic analogy to { } the sentence in the acts, only tend to show how common and natural such language was in the early church in connection with persecution. whilst we constantly meet with the thought expressed by the writer of the epistle throughout the writings of the new testament, we may more particularly point to the first petrine epistle for further instances of this tone of exhortation to those suffering persecution for the cause. for instance, pet. ii. ff, and again iii. ,( ) "but if ye even suffer [------] for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye." in the next chapter the tone is still more closely analogous. speaking of persecutions, the writer says, iv. , ".... but according as ye are partakers of christ's sufferings rejoice," &c. &c. . "if ye are reproached in christ's name [------] blessed are ye, for the spirit of glory and of god resteth upon you." . "for let none of you suffer [------] as a murderer," &c. &c. . "but if as a christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him praise god in this name [------]" &c. &c. nothing but evidential destitution could rely upon the expression in the "epistle of polycarp" to show acquaintance with acts. few apologists point out with confidence any passages from the voluminous writings of justin martyr, as indicating the use of the acts of the apostles. we may, however, quote such expressions as the more undaunted amongst them venture to advance. the first of these is the following:( ) "for the jews having the prophecies and ever expecting the christ to come knew him not [------], and not only so, but they also maltreated him. but { } the gentiles, who had never heard any thing regarding the christ until his apostles, having gone forth from jerusalem, declared the things concerning him, and delivered the prophecies, having been filled with joy and faith, renounced their idols and dedicated themselves to the unbegotten god through the christ"( ) this is compared with acts xiii. , "for they that dwell at jerusalem and their rulers not knowing this (man) [------] nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, fulfilled them by their judgment of him," &c. . "but the gentiles, hearing, rejoiced and glorified the word of the lord," &c.( ) we may at once proceed to give the next passage. in the dialogue with trypho, justin has by quotations from the prophets endeavoured to show that the sufferings of christ, and also the glory of his second advent had been foretold, and trypho replies: "supposing these things to be even as thou sayest, and that it was foretold that christ was to suffer [------], and has been called a stone, and after his first coming, in which it had been announced that he was to suffer, should come in glory, and become judge of all, and eternal king and priest;" &c.,( ) and in another place, "for { } if it had been obscurely declared by the prophets that the christ should suffer [------] and after these things be lord of all," &c.( ) this is compared with acts xxvi. , ".... saying nothing except those things which the prophets and moses said were to come to pass, ( ) whether the christ should suffer [------], whether, the first out of the resurrection from the dead, he is about to proclaim light unto the people and to the gentiles."( ) it is only necessary to quote these passages to show how unreasonable it is to maintain that they show the use of the acts by justin. he simply sets forth from the prophets, direct, the doctrines which formed the great text of the early church. some of the warmest supporters of the canon admit the "uncertainty" of such coincidences, and do not think it worth while to advance them. there are one or two still more distant analogies sometimes pointed out which do not require more particular notice.( ) there is no evidence whatever that justin was acquainted with the acts of the apostles.( ) { } some apologists( ) claim hegesippus as evidence for the existence of the acts, on the strength of the following passages in the fragment of his book preserved by eusebius. he puts into the mouth of james the just, whilst being martyred, the expression: "i beseech (thee) lord god, father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." this is compared with the words said to have been uttered by the martyr stephen, acts vii. , "lord, lay not this sin to their charge.,, the passage is more commonly advanced as showing acquaintance with luke xxiii. , and we have already discussed it.( ) lardner apparently desires it to do double duty, but it is scarcely worth while seriously to refer to the claim here. the passage more generally relied upon, though that also is only advanced by a few,( ) is the following, "this man was a faithful witness both to jews and greeks that jesus is the christ,"( ) [------]. this is compared with acts xx. , where paul is represented as saying of himself, ".... testifying fully both to jews and greeks repentance toward god, and faith toward our lord jesus christ" [------]. the two passages are totally different both in sense and language, and that the use of acts is deduced from so distant an analogy only serves to show the slightness of the evidence with which apologists have to be content. { } papias need not long detain us, for it is freely admitted by most divines that he does not afford evidence of any value that he was acquainted with the acts. for the sake of completeness we may however refer to the points which are sometimes mentioned. a fragment of the work of papias is preserved giving an account of the death of judas, which differs materially both from the account in the first synoptic and in acts i. f.( ) judas is represented as having gone about the world a great example of impiety, for his body having swollen so much that he could not pass where a waggon easily passed, he was crushed by the waggon so that his entrails emptied out [------]. apollinaris of laodicæa quotes this passage to show that judas did not die when he hung himself, but subsequently met with another fate, in this way reconciling the statements in the gospel and acts.( ) he does not say that papias used the story for this purpose, and it is fundamentally contradictory to the account in acts i. , . "now this man purchased a field with the reward of the unrighteousness, and falling headlong burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" [------]. it is scarcely necessary to argue that the passage does not indicate any acquaintance with acts( ) as some few critics are inclined to assert.( ) the { } next analogy pointed out is derived from the statement of eusebius that papias mentions a wonderful story which he had heard from the daughters of philip (whom eusebius calls "the apostle,") regarding a dead man raised to life.( ) in acts xxi. , , it is stated that philip the evangelist had four daughters. it is hardly conceivable that this should be advanced as an indication that papias knew the acts. the last point is that eusebius says: "and again (he narrates) another marvel regarding justus who was surnamed barsabas; how he drank a baneful poison and by the grace of the lord sustained no harm. but that this justus, after the ascension of the saviour, the holy apostles appointed with matthias, and that they prayed (on the occasion) of the filling up of their number by lot instead of the traitor judas, the scripture of the acts thus relates: 'and they appointed two, joseph called barsabas, who was surnamed justus, and matthias. and they prayed and said,' &c."( ) whatever argument can be deduced from this, obviously rests entirely upon the fact that papias is said to have referred to justus who was named barsabas, for of course the last sentence is added by eusebius himself, and has nothing to do with papias. this is fairly admitted by lardner and others. lardner says: "papias does undoubtedly give some confirmation to the history of the acts of the apostles, in what he says of philip; and especially in what he says of justus, called { } barsabas. but i think it cannot be affirmed, that he did particularly mention, or refer to, the book of the acts. for i reckon, it is eusebius himself who adds that quotation out of the acts, upon occasion of what papias had written of the before-mentioned barsabas."( ) there is no evidence worthy of attention that papias was acquainted with the acts.( ) no one seriously pretends that the clementine homilies afford any evidence of the use or existence of the acts; and few, if any, claim the epistle to diognetus as testimony for it.( ) we may, however, quote the only passage which is pointed out. ".... these who hold the view that they present them (offerings) to god as needing them might more rightly esteem it foolishness and not worship of god. for he who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them, and who supplies to us all whatever we need, can himself be in need of none of those things which he himself presents to those who imagine that they give (to him)."( ) this is { } compared with acts xvii. : "the god that made the world and all things in it, he being lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ( ) neither is served by men's hand as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life and breath and all things."( ) there is nothing here but a coincidence of sense, though with much variation between the two passages, but the epistle argues from a different context, and this illustration is obvious enough to be common to any moralist. there is not a single reason which points to the acts as the source of the writer's argument. basilides and valentinus are not claimed at all by apologists as witnesses for the existence of the acts of the apostles, nor is marcion, whose canon, however, of which it formed no part, is rather adverse to the work than merely negative. tertullian taunts marcion for receiving paul as an apostle, although his name is not mentioned in the gospel, and yet not receiving the acts of the apostles in which alone his history is narrated;( ) but it does not in the least degree follow from this that marcion knew the work and deliberately rejected it. a passage of tatian's oration to the greeks is pointed out by some( ) as showing his acquaintance with the acts. it is as follows: "i am not willing to worship the creation { } made by him for us. sun and moon are made for us: how, therefore, shall i worship my own servants? how can i declare stocks and stones to be gods?... but neither should the unnameable [------] god be presented with bribes; for he who is without need of anything [------] must not be calumniated by us as needy [------]."(l) this is compared with acts xvii. , , quoted above, and it only serves to show how common such language was. lardner himself says of the passage: "this is much the same thought, and applied to the same purpose, with paul's, acts xvii. , _as though he needeth anything_. but it is a character of the deity so obvious, that i think it cannot determine us to suppose he had an eye to those words of the apostle."( ) the language, indeed, is quite different and shows no acquaintance with the acts.( ) eusebius states that the severians who more fully established tatian's heresy rejected both the epistles of paul and the acts of the apostles.( ) dionysius of corinth is rarely adduced by any one as testimony for the acts. the only ground upon which he is at all referred to is a statement of eusebius in mentioning his epistles. speaking of his epistle to the athenians, eusebius says: "he relates, moreover, that dionysius the areopagite who was converted to the faith by paul the apostle, according to the account given in the { } acts, was appointed the first bishop of the church of the athenians."( ) even apologists admit that it is doubtful how far dionysius referred to the acts,( ) the mention of the book here being most obviously made by eusebius himself. melito of sardis is not appealed to by any writer in connection with our work, nor can claudius apollinaris be pressed into this service. athenagoras is supposed by some to refer to the very same passage in acts xvii. , , which we have discussed when dealing with the work of tatian. athenagoras says: "the creator and father of the universe is not in need of blood, nor of the steam of burnt sacrifices, nor of the fragrance of flowers and of incense, he himself being the perfect fragrance, inwardly and outwardly without need."( ) and further on: "and you kings indeed build palaces for yourselves; but the world is not made as being needed by god."( ) these passages occur in the course of a defence of christians for not offering sacrifices, and both in language and context they are quite independent of the acts of the apostles. in the epistle of the churches of vienne and lyons, giving an account of the persecution against them, it is said that the victims were praying for those from whom they suffered cruelties: "like stephen the perfect martyr: { } 'lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' but if he was supplicating for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren?"(l) the prayer here quoted agrees with that ascribed to stephen in acts vii. . there is no mention of the acts of the apostles in the epistle, and the source from which the writers obtained their information about stephen is of course not stated. if there really was a martyr of the name of stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him, the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may well have remained in the church, or have been recorded in writings then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics conjecture that the author of acts derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does not prove the use of the acts. if, on the other hand, there never was such a martyr by whom these words were spoken, and the whole story must be considered an original invention by the author of acts, then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the use of the acts.( ) supposing that the use of acts be held to be thus indicated, what does this prove? merely that the acts of the apostles were in existence in the year - , when the epistle of { } vienne and lyons was written. no light whatever would thus be thrown upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be in the slightest degree established. ptolemæus and heracleon ueed not detain us, as it is not alleged that they show acquaintance with the acts, nor is celsus claimed as testimony for the book. the canon of muratori contains a very corrupt paragraph regarding the acts of the apostles. we have already discussed the date and character of this fragment,( ) and need not further speak of it here. the sentence in which we are now interested reads in the original as follows: "acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofile conprindit quia sub præsentia eius singula gerebantur sicute et semote pas-sionem petri euidenter declarat sed et profectionem pauli ab urbes ad spania proficescentis." it is probable that in addition to its corruption some words may have been lost from the concluding phrase of this passage, but the following may perhaps sufficiently represent its general sense: "but the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. luke included (in his work) to the excellent theophilus only the things which occurred in his own presence, as he evidently shows by omitting the martyrdom of peter and also the setting forth of paul from the city to spain." whilst this passage may prove the existence of the acts about the end of the second century, and that the authorship of the work was ascribed to luke, it has no further value. no weight can be attached to the statement of { } the unknown writer beyond that of merely testifying to the currency of such a tradition, and even the few words quoted show how uncritical he was. nothing could be less appropriate to the work before us than the assertion that it contains the acts of _all_ the apostles, for it must be apparent to all, and we shall hereafter have to refer to the point, that it very singularly omits all record of the acts of most of the apostles, occupies itself chiefly with those of peter and paul, and devotes considerable attention to stephen and to others who were not apostles at all. we shall further have occasion to show that the writer does anything but confine himself to the events of which he was an eye-witness, and we may merely remark, in passing, as a matter. which scarcely concerns us here, that the instances given by the unknown writer of the fragment to support his assertion are not only irrelevant, but singularly devoid themselves of historical attestation. irenæus( ) assigns the acts of the apostles to luke, as do clement of alexandria,( ) tertullian,( ) and origen,( ) although without any statements giving special weight to their mention of him as the author in any way counterbalancing the late date of their testimony. beyond showing that tradition, at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, associated the name of luke with this writing and the third gospel, the evidence of these fathers is of no value to us. we have already incidentally mentioned that some heretics either ignored or rejected the book, and to the marcionites and severians { } we may now add the ebionites( ) and manichæans.( ) chrysostom complains that in his day the acts of the apostles were so neglected that many were ignorant of the existence of the book and of its authors.( ) doubts as to its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for photius states that some ascribed the work to clement of rome, others to barnabas, and others to luke the evangelist.( ) if we turn to the document itself, we find that it professes to be the second portion of a work written for the information of an unknown person named theophilus, the first part being the gospel, which, in our canonical new testament, bears the name of "gospel according to luke." the narrative is a continuation of the third synoptic, but the actual title of "acts of the apostles," or "acts of apostles" [------],( ) attached to this [------] is a later addition, and formed no part of the original document. the author's name is not given in any of the earlier mss., and the work is entirely anonymous. that in the prologue to the acts the writer clearly assumes to be the author of the gospel does not in any way identify him, inasmuch as the third synoptic itself is equally anonymous. the tradition assigning both works to luke the follower of paul, as we have seen, is first met with { } towards the end of the second century, and very little weight can be attached to it. there are too many instances of early writings, several of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to which distinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. such tradition is notoriously liable to error. we shall presently return to the question of the authorship of the third synoptic and acts of the apostles, but at present we may so far anticipate as to say that there are good reasons for affirming that they could not have been written by luke.( ) confining ourselves here to the actual evidence before us, we arrive at a clear and unavoidable conclusion regarding the acts of the apostles. after examining all the early christian literature, and taking every passage which is referred to as indicating the use of the book, we see that there is no certain trace even of its existence till towards the end of the second century; and, whilst the writing itself is anonymous, we find no authority but late tradition assigning it to luke or to any other author. we are absolutely without evidence of any value as to its accuracy or trustworthiness, and, as we shall presently see, the epistles of paul, so far from accrediting it, tend to cast the most serious doubt upon its whole character. this evidence we have yet to examine, when considering the contents of the acts, and we base our present remarks solely on the external testimony for the date and authorship of the book. the position, therefore, is simply this: we are asked to believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and supernatural the reader is referred to an article by the author in the fortnightly rev., , p. ff., in which some indications of date, and particularly those connected with the use of writings of josephus, are discussed. { } occurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible, upon the assurance of an anonymous work of whose existence there is no distinct evidence till more than a century after the events narrated, and to which an author's name--against which there are strong objections--is first ascribed by tradition towards the end of the second century. of the writer to whom the work is thus attributed we know nothing beyond the casual mention of his name in some pauline epistles. if it were admitted that this luke did actually write the book, we should not be justified in believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his bare statement as the case stands, however, even taking it in its most favourable aspect, the question scarcely demands serious attention, and our discussion might at once be ended by the unhesitating rejection of the acts of the apostles as sufficient, or even plausible, evidence for the miracles which it narrates. chapter ii. evidence regarding the authorship if we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is from no doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we have now arrived, but from the belief that closer examination of the contents of the acts may enable us to test this result, and more fully to understand the nature of the work and the character of its evidence. not only will it be instructive to consider a little closely the contents of the acts, and to endeavour from the details of the narrative itself to form a judgment regarding its historical value, but we have in addition external testimony of very material importance which we may bring to bear upon it. we happily possess some undoubted epistles which afford us no little information concerning the history, character, and teaching of the apostle paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements in the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value. it is unnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the unknown author of the acts are at variance with these epistles, we must prefer the statements of the apostle. the importance to our inquiry of such further examination as we now propose to undertake consists chiefly in the light which it may throw on the credibility of the work. if it be found that such { } portions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy, it will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document for miracles, which are antecedently incredible, cannot even be entertained. it may be well also to discuss more fully the authorship of the acts, and to this we shall first address ourselves. it must, however, be borne in mind that it is quite foreign to our purpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary problem presented by the acts of the apostles. we shall confine ourselves to such points as seem sufficient or best fitted to test the character of the composition, and we shall not hesitate to pass without attention questions of mere literary interest, and strictly limit our examination to such prominent features as present themselves for our purpose. it is generally admitted, although not altogether without exception,( ) that the author of our third synoptic gospel likewise composed the acts of the apostles. the linguistic and other peculiarities which distinguish the gospel are equally prominent in the acts. this fact, whilst apparently offering greatly increased facilities for identifying the author, and actually affording valuable material for estimating his work, does not, as we have already remarked, really do much towards solving the problem of the authorship, inasmuch as the gospel, like its continuation, is anonymous, and we possess no more precise or direct evidence in connection with the one than in the case of the other. we have already so fully examined the testimony for the third gospel that it is unnecessary for us to recur to it. from about the end of the second century we find the gospel and acts of the { } apostles ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to luke, the companion of the apostle paul. the fallibility of tradition, and the singular phase of literary morality exhibited during the early ages of christianity, render such testimony of little or no value, and in the almost total absence of the critical faculty a rank crop of pseudonymic writings sprang up and flourished during that period.( ) some of the earlier chapters of this work have given abundant illustrations of this fact. it is absolutely certain, with regard to the works we are considering, that irenæus is the earliest writer known who ascribes them to luke, and that even tradition, therefore, cannot be traced beyond the last quarter of the second century. the question is--does internal evidence confirm or contradict this tradition? luke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the acts of the apostles.( ) in the epistle to philemon his name occurs, with those of others, who send greeting, verse , "there salute thee epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in christ jesus; . marcus, aristarchus, demas, luke, my fellow-labourers." in the epistle to the colossians, iv. , mention is also made of him:--"luke, the beloved physician,( ) salutes you, and demas." and again, in the epistle to timothy, iv. :--"for { } demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into thessalouica, crescens to galatia, titus unto dalmatia: . only luke is with me." he is not mentioned elsewhere in the new testament;( ) and his name is not again met with till irenæus ascribes to him the authorship of the gospel and acts. there is nothing in these pauline epistles confirming the statement of the fathers, but it is highly probable that these references to him largely contributed to suggest his name as the author of the acts, the very omission of his name from the work itself protecting him from objections connected with the passages in the first person to which other followers of paul were exposed, upon the traditional view of the composition. irenæus evidently knew nothing about him, except what he learnt from these epistles, and derives from his theory that luke wrote the acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the passages where the first person is used. from these he argues that luke was inseparable from paul, and was his fellow-worker in the gospel, and he refers, in proof of this, to acts xvi. ff.,( ) ff., xx. ff., and the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes luke to have carefully written down. he then continues: "but that he was not only a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the apostles, but particularly of paul, paul himself has also clearly shown in the epistles, saying:..." and he quotes tim. iv. , , ending: "only luke is with me," and then adds, "whence he shows that he was { } always with him and inseparable from him, &c, ac."( ) the reasoning of the zealous father deduces a great deal from very little, it will be observed, and in this elastic way tradition "enlarged its borders" and assumed unsubstantial dimensions. later writers have no more intimate knowledge of luke, although eusebius states that he was born at antioch,( ) a tradition likewise reproduced by jerome.( ) jerome further identifies luke with "the brother, whose praise in the gospel is throughout all the churches" mentioned in cor. viii. , as accompanying titus to corinth.( ) at a later period, when the church required an early artist for its service, luke the physician was honoured with the additional title of painter.( ) epiphanius,( ) followed later by some other { } writers, represented him to have been one of the seventy-two disciples, whose mission he alone of all new testament writers mentions. the view of the fathers, arising out of the application of their tradition to the features presented by the gospel and acts, was that luke composed his gospel, of the events of which he was not an eye-witness, from information derived from others, and his acts of the apostles from what he himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed, had witnessed. it is generally supposed that luke was not born a jew, but was a gentile christian. some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that the gospel and acts were written by luke "the beloved physician," by the supposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms,( ) but very little weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is repudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us. as there is no indication, either in the gospel or the acts, of the author's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of the ascription of { } these writings to "luke"? to this question ewald shall reply: "in fact," he says, "we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully sufficient. it lies in the designation of the third gospel as that 'according to luke' which is found in all mss. of the four gospels. for the quotations of this particular gospel under the distinct name of luke, in the extant writings of the fathers, begin so late that they cannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those known to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription. we thus depend almost alone on this superscription."( ) ewald generally does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully sufficient," but it is doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence will agree with him. he himself goes on to admit, with all other critics, that the superscriptions to our gospels do not proceed from the authors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or by later readers to distinguish them.( ) there was no author's name attached to marcion's gospel, as we learn from tertullian.( ) chrysostom very distinctly asserts that the evangelists did not inscribe their names at the head of their works,( ) and he recognizes that, but for the authority of the primitive church which added those names, the superscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the gospels. he conjectures that the sole superscription which may { } have been placed by the author of the first synoptic was simply [------].( ) it might be argued, and indeed has been, that the inscription [------], "according to luke," instead of [------] "gospel of luke," does not actually indicate that "luke" wrote the work any more than the superscription to the gospels "according to the hebrews" [------] "according to the egyptians" [------] has reference to authorship. the epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected with their writers, in the genitive, [------], and so on. this point, however, we merely mention _en passant_. by his own admission, therefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form, but instead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the most ancient extant mss., as for instance the sinaitic and vatican codices of the gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of their age, date earlier than the fourth century.( ) as for the acts of the apostles, the book is not ascribed to luke in a single uncial ms., and it only begins to appear in various forms in later codices. the variation in the titles of the gospels and acts in different mss. alone shows the uncertainty of the superscription. it is clear that the "one ground," upon which ewald admits that the evidence for luke's authorship is based, is nothing but sand, and cannot support his tower. he is on the slightest consideration thrown back upon the quotations of the fathers, which begin too late for the { } purpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the third gospel and acts to luke rests solely upon late and unsupported tradition. let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages in the pauline epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about luke. as we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the designation "the beloved physician" in the epistle to the colossians, iv. , does not distinguish a different luke from the person of that name in the epistles to philemon and timothy. if this were the case, our information would be further reduced; but supposing that the same luke is referred to, what does our information amount to? absolutely nothing but the fact that a person named luke was represented by the writer of these letters,( ) whoever he was, to have been with paul in rome, and that he was known to the church of colossæ. there is no evidence whatever that this luke had been a travelling companion of paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a gospel. he is not mentioned in epistles written during this journey and, indeed, the rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much rather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the proclamation of the gospel. if luke be [------] and be numbered amongst the apostle's [------], tychicus is equally "the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the lord."( ) onesimus the "faithful and beloved brother,"( ) we cannot discuss the authenticity of these epistles in this place, nor is it very important that we should do so. nor can we pause to consider whether they were written in rome, as a majority of critics think, or elsewhere. { } and aristarchus, mark the cousin of barnabas, justus and others are likewise his [------].( ) there is no evidence, in fact, that paul was acquainted with luke earlier than during his imprisonment in rome, and he seems markedly excluded from the apostle's work and company by such passages as cor. i. .( ) the simple theory that luke wrote the acts supplies all the rest of the tradition of the fathers, as we have seen in the case of irenæus, and to this mere tradition we are confined in the total absence of more ancient testimony. the traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed, and has been widely held up to our own day,( ) represents luke as the author of the acts, and, in { } the passages where the first person is employed, considers that he indicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. these passages, where [------] is introduced, present a curious problem which has largely occupied the attention of critics, and it has been the point most firmly disputed in the long controversy regarding, the authorship of the acts. into this literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a very short way; for, however interesting the question may be in itself, we are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible which can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to it sufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the authorship. we shall, however, supply abundant references for those who care more minutely to pursue the subject. after the narrative of the acts has, through fifteen chapters, proceeded uninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change to the first person plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter.( ) paul, and at least timothy, are represented as going through phrygia and galatia, and at length "they came down to troas," where a vision appears to paul beseeching him to come over into macedonia. then, xvi. , proceeds: "and after he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured [------] to go forth into macedonia, concluding that god had called us [------] to preach the gospel unto them." after verse , the direct form of narrative is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not reappear until xx. , when, without explanation, it is resumed and continued for ten verses. it is then again abandoned, and recommenced in xxi. - , and xxvii. , xxviii. . it is unnecessary to discuss whether xiv. belongs to the [------] sections or not. { } it is argued by those who adopt the traditional view,( ) that it would be an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a writer as the author of the third synoptic and acts, to have composed these sections from documents lying before him, written by others, leaving them in the form of a narrative in the first person, whilst the rest of his work was written in the third, and that, without doubt, he would have assimilated such portions to the form of the rest. on the other hand, that he himself makes distinct use of the first person in luke i. - and acts i. , and consequently prepares the reader to expect that, where it is desirable, he will resume the direct mode of communication; and in support of this supposition, it is asserted that the very same peculiarities of style and language exist in the [------] passages as in the rest of the work. the adoption of the direct form of narrative in short merely indicates that the author himself was present and an eye-witness of what he relates,( ) and that writing as he did for the information of theophilus, who was well aware of his personal participation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for him to give any explanation of his occasional use of the first person. is the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in these particular sections of his work, without a word of explanation, more intelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory of their being by the author himself as an eye-witness? on the contrary, it is maintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes much more some writers also consider as one of the reasons why luke, the supposed author, uses the first person, that where he begins to do so he himself becomes associated with paul in his work, and first begins to preach the gospel. thiersch, die kirche im ap. zeit., p. ; baumgarfen, die apostelgeschichte, i. p. . { } inexplicable. on examining the [------] sections it will be observed that they consist almost entirely of an itinerary of journeys, and that while the chronology of the rest of the acts is notably uncertain and indefinite, these passages enter into the minutest details of daily movements (xvi. , ; xx. , , , ; xxi. , , , , , , ; xxvii. ; xxviii. , , ); of the route pursued, and places through which often they merely pass (xvi. , ; xx. , , , ; xxi. - , ; xxvii. ff.; xxviii. - ), and record the most trifling circumstances (xvi. ; xx. ; xxi. , , ; xxviii. , ). the distinguishing feature of these sections in fact is generally asserted to be the stamp which they bear, above all other parts of the acts, of intimate personal knowledge of the circumstances related. is it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of the acts should intrude his own personality merely to record these minute details of voyages and journeys? that his appearance as an eye-witness should be almost wholly limited to the itinerary of paul's journeys and to portions of his history which are of very subordinate interest? the voyage and shipwreck are thus narrated with singular minuteness of detail, but if any one who reads it only consider the matter for a moment, it will become apparent that this elaboration of the narrative is altogether disproportionate to the importance of the voyage in the history of the early church. the traditional view indeed is fatal to the claims of the acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it contains, for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively unimportant and commonplace. the writer's intimate acquaintance with the history of paul, and his claim to participation in his work, begin and end with his actual { } journeys. with very few exceptions, as soon as the apostle stops anywhere, he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and relapses into vagueness and the third person. at the very time when minuteness of detail would have been most interesting, he ceases to be minute. a very long and important period of paul's life is covered by the narrative between xvi. , where the[------] sections begin, and xxviii. , where they end; but, although the author goes with such extraordinary detail into the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and unsatisfactory is the account of the rest of paul's career during that time!(l) how eventful that career must have been we learn from cor. xi. - . in any case, the author who could be so minute in his record of an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be minute in his account of more important matters in his history. in the few verses, ix. - , chiefly occupied by an account of paul's conversion, is comprised all that the author has to tell of three years of the apostle's life, and into xi. --xiv. are compressed the events of fourteen years of his history (cf. gal. ii. l).( ) if the author of those portions be the same writer who is so minute in his daily itinerary in the [------] sections, his sins of omission and commission are of a very startling character. to say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an elaborate trifler. does the use of the first person in luke i. - and acts i. in any way justify or prepare( ) the way for the { } sudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth chapter? certainly not. the [------] in these passages is used solely in the personal address to theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation contained in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at once dropped when the history begins. if the prologue of the gospel be applied to the acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is at once implied, which would rather justify the supposition that these passages are part of some diary, from which the general editor made extracts.( ) besides, there is no explanation in the acts which in the slightest degree connects the [------] with the [------].( ) to argue that explanation was unnecessary, as theophilus and early readers were well acquainted with the fact that the author was a fellow-traveller with the apostle, and therefore at once understood the meaning of "we,"( ) would destroy the utility of the direct form of communication altogether; for if theophilus knew this, there was obviously no need to introduce the first person at all, in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to chronicle minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little interest. moreover, writing for theophilus, we might reasonably expect that he should have stated where and when he became associated with paul, and explained the reasons why he again left and rejoined him.( ) ewald suggests that possibly the author intended to have indicated his name more distinctly at the end of his work;( ) but this merely shows that, argue as he will, { } he feels the necessity for such an explanation. the conjecture is negatived, however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. as in the case of the fourth gospel, of course the "incomparable modesty" theory is suggested as the reason why the author does not mention his own name, and explain the adoption of the first person in the [------] passages;( ) but to base theories such as this upon the modesty or elevated views of a perfectly unknown writer is obviously too arbitrary a proceeding to be permissible.( ) there is, besides, exceedingly little modesty in a writer forcing himself so unnecessarily into notice, for he does not represent himself as taking any active part in the events narrated; and, as the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving, he might well have remained impersonal to the end. on the other hand, supposing the general editor of the acts to have made use of written sources of information, and amongst others of the diary of a companion of the apostle paul, it is not so strange that, for one reason or another, he should have allowed the original direct form of communication to stand whilst incorporating parts of it with his work. instances have been pointed out in which a similar retention of the first or third person, in a narrative generally written otherwise, is accepted as the indication of a different written source, as for instance in ezra vii. --ix; nehemiah viii.--x.; in the book of tobit i. - , iii. ff., and other places;s and schwanbeck has { } pointed out many instances of a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of the middle ages.( ) there are various ways in which the retention of the first person in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from some other written source, might be explained. the simple supposition that the author, either through carelessness or oversight, allowed the [------] to stand( ) is not excluded, and indeed some critics, although we think without reason, maintain both the third gospel and the acts to be composed of materials derived from various sources and put together with little care or adjustment.( ) the author might also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of paul, and retained the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to assume the character of eyewitness, and of companion of the apostle.( ) as we shall see in the course of our examination of the acts, the general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to discredit such an explanation. we shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from which critics maintain that the author compiled his { } work. it is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite traces of many documents, few if any writers deny that the writer made more or less use of earlier materials. it is quite true that the characteristics of the general author's style are found throughout the whole work. the acts are no mere aggregate of scraps collected and rudely joined together, but the work of one author in the sense that whatever materials he may have used for its composition were carefully assimilated, and subjected to thorough and systematic revision to adapt them to his purpose.( ) but however completely this process was carried out, and his materials interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style and language, he did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of independent written sources. some writers maintain that there is a very apparent difference between the first twelve { } chapters and the remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much more hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion,( ) although this is not received without demur.( ) as regards the [------] sections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have in any case been much manipulated by the general editor, and largely contain his general characteristics of language, it is at the same time affirmed that they present distinct foreign peculiarities, which betray a borrowed document.( ) even critics who maintain the [------] sections to be by the same writer who composed the rest of the book point out the peculiarly natural character and minute knowledge displayed in these passages, as distinguishing them from the rest of the acts.( ) this of course they attribute to the fact that the author there relates his personal experiences; but even with this explanation it is apparent that all who maintain the traditional view do recognize peculiarities in these sections, by which they justify the ascription of them to an eye-witness. for the reasons which have been very briefly indicated, therefore, and upon other { } strong grounds, some of which will be presently stated, a very large mass of the ablest critics have concluded that the [------] sections were not composed by the author of the rest of the acts, but that they are part of the diary of some companion of the apostle paul, of which the author of acts made use for his work,( ) and that the general writer of the work, and consequently of the third synoptic, was not luke at all.( ) { } a careful study of the contents of the acts cannot, we think, leave any doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or intimate friend of the apostle paul.( ) in here briefly indicating some of the reasons for this statement, we shall be under the necessity of anticipating, without much explanation or argument, points which will be more fully discussed farther on, and which now, stated without preparation, may not be sufficiently clear to some readers. they may hereafter seem more conclusive. it is unreasonable to suppose that a friend or companion could have written so unhistorical and defective a history of the apostle's life and teaching. the pauline epistles are nowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative and representations of acts with the statements of the apostle, they are strikingly contradictory.( ) { } his teaching in the one scarcely presents a trace of the strong and clearly defined doctrines of the other, and the character and conduct of the paul of acts are altogether different from those of paul of the epistles. according to paul himself (gal. i. -- ), after his conversion, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither went up to jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but immediately went away into arabia, and returned to damascus, and only after three years he went up to jerusalem to visit kephas, and abode with him fifteen days, during which visit none other of the apostles did he see "save james, the brother of the lord." if assurance of the correctness of these details were required, paul gives it by adding (v. ): "now the things which i am writing to you, behold before god i lie not." according to acts (ix. -- ), however, the facts are quite different. paul immediately begins to preach in damascus, does not visit arabia at all, but, on the contrary, goes to jerusalem, where, under the protection of barnabas (v. , ), he is introduced to the apostles, and "was with them going in and out." according to paul (gal. i. ), his face was after that unknown unto the churches of judaea, whereas, according to acts, not only was he "going in and out" at jerusalem with the apostles, but (ix. ) preached boldly in the name of the lord, and (acts xxvi. ) "in jerusalem and throughout all the region of judaea," he urged to repentance. according to paul (gal. ii. ff.), after fourteen years he went up again to jerusalem with barnabas and titus, { } "according to a revelation," and "privately" communicated his gospel "to those who seemed to be something," as, with some irony, he calls the apostles. in words still breathing irritation and determined independence, paul relates to the galatians the particulars of that visit--how great pressure had been exerted to compel titus, though a greek, to be circumcised, "that they might bring us into bondage," to whom, "not even for an hour did we yield the required subjection." he protests, with proud independence, that the gospel which he preaches was not received from man (gal. i. , ), but revealed to him by god (verses , ); and during this visit (ii. , ) "from those seeming to be something [------], whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me--god accepteth not man's person--for to me those who seemed [------] communicated nothing additional." according to acts, after his conversion, paul is taught by a man named ananias what he must do (ix. , xxii. ); he makes visits to jerusalem (xi. , xii. , &c), which are excluded by paul's own explicit statements; and a widely different report is given (xv. ff.) of the second visit. paul does not go, "according to a revelation," but is deputed by the church of antioch, with barnabas, in consequence of disputes regarding the circumcision of gentiles, to lay the case before the apostles and elders at jerusalem. it is almost impossible in the account here given of proceedings characterised throughout by perfect harmony, forbearance, and unanimity of views, to recognize the visit described by paul. instead of being private, the scene is a general council of the church. the fiery independence of paul is transformed into meekness and submission. there is not a word of the { } endeavour to compel him to have titus circumcised--all is peace and undisturbed good-will. peter pleads the cause of paul, and is more pauline in his sentiments than paul himself, and, in the very presence of paul, claims to have been selected by god to be apostle of the gentiles (xv. -- ). not a syllable is said of the scene at antioch shortly after (gal. ii. ff.), so singularly at variance with the proceedings of the council, when paul withstood cephas to the face. then, who would recognize the paul of the epistles in the paul of acts, who makes such repeated journeys to jerusalem to attend jewish feasts (xviii. , xix. , xx. , xxiv. , , ); who, in his journeys, halts on the days when a jew may not travel (xx. , ); who shaves his head at cenchrea because of a vow (xviii. ); who, at the recommendation of the apostles, performs that astonishing act of nazariteship in the temple (xxi. ), and afterwards follows it up by a defence of such "excellent dissembling" [------]; who circumcises timothy, the son of a greek and of a jewess, with his own hands (xvi. -- , cf. gal. v. ); and who is so little the apostle of the uncircumcision that he only tardily goes to the gentiles when rejected by the jews (cf. xviii. (j). paul is not only robbed of the honour of being the first apostle of the gentiles, which is conferred upon peter, but the writer seems to avoid even calling him an apostle at all,( ) the only occasions upon which he does so being indirect (xiv. , ); and the title equally applied to barnabas, whose claim to it is more than doubted. the { } passages in which this occurs, moreover, are not above suspicion, "the apostles" being omitted in cod. d. (bezae) from xiv. . the former verse in that codex has important variations from other mss. if we cannot believe that the representation actually given of paul in the acts could proceed from a friend or companion of the apostle, it is equally impossible that such a person could have written his history with so many extraordinary imperfections and omissions. we have already pointed out that between chs. ix.--xiv. are compressed the events of seventeen of the most active years of the apostle's life, and also that a long period is comprised within the [------] sections, during which such minute details of the daily itinerary are given. the incidents reported, however, are quite disproportionate to those which are omitted. we have no record, for instance, of his visit to arabia at so interesting a portion of his career (gal. i. ), although the particulars of his conversion are repeated with singular variations no less than three times (ix. xxii. xxvi.); nor of his preaching in illyria (rom. xv. ); nor of the incident referred to in rom. xvi. , . the momentous adventures in the cause of the gospel spoken of in cor. xi. ff. receive scarcely any illustration in acts, nor is any notice taken of his fighting with wild beasts at ephesus ( cor. xv. ), which would have formed an episode full of serious interest. what, again, was "the affliction which happened in asia," which so overburdened even so energetic a nature as that of the apostle that "he despaired even of life?" ( cor. ii. f.) some light upon these points might reasonably have been expected from a companion of paul. then, xvii. -- , xviii. contradict thess. iii. , , in a way scarcely possible in such a { } companion, present with the apostle at athens; and in like manner the representation in xxviii. - is inconsistent with such a person, ignoring as it does the fact that there already was a christian church in rome (ep. to romans). we do not refer to the miraculous elements so thickly spread over the narrative of the acts, and especially in the episode xvi. ff., which is inserted in the first [------] section, as irreconcilable with the character of an eye-witness, because it is precisely the miraculous portion of the book which is on its trial; but we may ask whether it would have been possible for such a friend, acquainted with the apostle's representations in cor. xiv. ff., cf. xii.--xiv., and the phenomena there described, to speak of the gift of "tongues" at pentecost as the power of speaking different languages (ii. -- , cf. x. , xix. ) it will readily be understood that we have here merely rapidly and by way of illustration referred to a few of the points which seem to preclude the admission that the general author of the acts could be an eyewitness,( ) or companion of the apostle paul, and this will become more apparent as we proceed, and more closely examine the contents of the book. who that author was, there are now no means of ascertaining. the majority of critics who have most profoundly examined the problem presented by the acts, however, and who do not admit luke to be the general author, are agreed that the author compiled the [------] sections from a diary kept by some companion of the apostle paul during the journeys and voyages to which they relate, but opinion is very divided as to the person { } to whom that diary must be ascribed. it is of course recognized that the various theories regarding his identity are merely based upon conjecture, but they have long severely exercised critical ingenuity. a considerable party adopt the conclusion that the diary was probably written by luke.( ) this theory has certainly the advantage of whatever support may be derived from tradition; and it has been conjectured, not without probability, that this diary, being either written by, or originally attributed to, luke, may possibly have been the source from which, in course of time, the whole of the acts, and consequently the gospel, came to be ascribed to luke.( ) the selection of a comparatively less known name than that of timothy, titus or silas,( ) for instance, may thus be explained; but, besides, it has the great advantage that, the name of luke never being mentioned in the acts, he is not exposed to criticism, which has found serious objections to the claims of other better known followers of paul. there are, however, many critics who find difficulties in the way of accepting luke as the author of the "we" sections, and who adopt the theory that they were pro- { } probably composed by timothy.( ) it is argued that, if luke had been the writer of this diary, he must have been in very close relations to paul, having been his companion during the apostle's second mission journey, as well as during the later european journey, and finally during the eventful journey of paul as a prisoner from caesarea to rome. under these circumstances, it is natural to expect that paul should mention him in his earlier epistles, written before the roman imprisonment, but this he nowhere does. for instance, no mention whatever is made of luke in either of the letters to the corinthians nor in those to the thessalonians; but on the other hand, timothy's name, together with that of silvanus (or silas), is joined to paul's in the two letters to the thessalonians, besides being mentioned in the body of the first epistle (iii. , ); and he is repeatedly and affectionately spoken of in the earlier letter to the corinthians ( cor. iv. , xvi. ), and his name is likewise combined with the apostle's in the second epistle ( cor. i. ), as well as mentioned in the body of the letter, along with that of silvanus, as a fellow-preacher with paul. in the epistle to the philippians, later, the name of luke does not appear, although, had he been the companion of the apostle from troas, he must have been known to the philippians, but on the other hand, timothy is again associated in the opening greeting of that epistle. timothy is known to have { } been a fellow-worker with the apostle, and to have accompanied him in his missionary journeys, and he is repeatedly mentioned in the acts as the companion of paul, and the first occasion is precisely where the [------] sections commence.( ) in connection with acts xv. , xvi. , , it is considered that luke is quite excluded from the possibility of being the companion who wrote the diary we are discussing, by the apostle's own words in cor. i. :( ) "for the son of god, christ jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and silvanus and timothy," &c, &c. the eye-witness who wrote the journal from which the [------] sections are taken must have been with the apostle in corinth, and, it is of course always asserted, must have been one of his [------], and preached the gospel.( ) is it possible, on the supposition that this fellow-labourer was luke, that the apostle could in so marked a manner have excluded his name by clearly defining that "us" only meant himself and silvanus and timothy? mayerhoff( ) has gone even further than the critics we have referred to, and maintains timothy to be the author of the third synoptic and of acts. we may briefly add that some writers have conjectured silas to be the author of the [------] sections,( ) and others { } have referred them to titus.( ) it is evident that whether the [------] sections be by the unknown author of the rest of the acts, or be part of a diary by some unknown companion of paul, introduced into the work by the general editor, they do not solve the problem as to the identity of the author, who remains absolutely unknown. we have said enough to enable the reader to understand the nature of the problem regarding the author of the third synoptic and of the acts of the apostles, and whilst for our purpose much less would have sufficed, it is evident that the materials do not exist for identifying him. the stupendous miracles related in these two works, therefore, rest upon the evidence of an unknown writer, who from internal evidence must have composed them very long after the events recorded. externally, there is no proof even of the existence of the acts until towards the end of the second century, when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name and identity of the supposed author, a theory which declares luke not to have himself been an eye-witness of the occurrences related in the gospel, and which reduces his participation even in the events narrated in the acts to a very small and modest compass, leaving the great mass of the miracles described in the work without even his personal attestation. the theory, however, we have seen to be not only unsupported by evidence, but to be contradicted by many potent circumstances. we propose now, without exhaustively examining the contents of the acts, which would itself require a separate treatise, at least to { } consider some of its main points sufficiently to form a fair judgment of the historical value of the work, although the facts which we have already ascertained are clearly fatal to the document as adequate testimony for miracles, and the reality of divine revelation. chapter iii. design and composition the historical value of the acts of the apostles has very long been the subject of vehement discussion, and the course of the controversy has certainly not been favourable to the position of the work. for a considerable time the traditional view continued to prevail, and little or no doubt of the absolute credibility of the narrative was ever expressed. when the spirit of independent and enlightened criticism was finally aroused, it had to contend with opinions which habit had rendered stereotype, and prejudices which took the form of hereditary belief. a large body of eminent critics, after an exhaustive investigation of the acts, have now declared that the work is not historically accurate, and cannot be accepted as a true account of the acts and teaching of the apostles.( ) { } the author of the acts has been charged with having written the work with a distinct design to which he subordinated historical truth, and in this view many critics have joined, who ultimately do not accuse him absolutely of falsifying history, but merely of making a deliberate selection of his materials with the view of placing events in the light most suitable for his purpose. most of those, however, who make this charge maintain that, in carrying out the original purpose of the acts, the writer so freely manipulated whatever materials he had before him, and so dealt with facts whether by omission, transformation or invention, that the historical value of his narrative has been destroyed or at least seriously affected by it. on the other hand, many apologetic writers altogether deny the existence of any design on the part of the { } author such as is here indicated, which could have led him to suppress or distort facts,( ) and whilst some of them advance very varied and fanciful theories as to the historical plan upon which the writer proceeds, and in accordance with which the peculiarities of his narrative are explained, they generally accept the work as the genuine history of the acts of the apostles so far as the author possessed certain information. the design most generally ascribed to the writer of the acts may, with many minor variations, be said to be apologetic and conciliatory: an attempt to reconcile the two parties in the early church by representing the difference between the views of peter and paul as slight and unimportant, pauline sentiments being freely placed in the mouth of peter, and the apostle of the gentiles being represented as an orthodox adherent of the church of jerusalem, with scarcely such advanced views of christian universality as peter; or else, an effort of gentile christianity to bring itself into closer union with the primitive church, surrendering, in so doing, all its distinctive features and its pauline origin, and representing the universalism by which it exists, as a principle adopted and promulgated from the very first by peter and the twelve. it is not necessary, however, for us to enter upon any minute discussion of this point, nor is it requisite, for the purposes of our inquiry, to determine whether the peculiar character { } of the writing which we are examining is the result of a perfectly definite purpose controlling the whole narrative and modifying every detail, or naturally arises from the fact that it is the work of a pious member of the church writing long after the events related, and imbuing his materials, whether of legend or ecclesiastical tradition, with his own thoroughly orthodox views: history freely composed for christian edification. we shall not endeavour to construct any theory to account for the phenomena before us, nor to discover the secret motives or intentions of the writer, but taking them as they are, we shall simply examine some of the more important portions of the narrative, with a view to determine whether the work can in any serious sense be regarded as credible history. no one can examine the contents of the acts without perceiving that some secret motive or influence did certainly govern the writer's mind, and guide him in the selection of topics, and this is betrayed by many peculiarities in his narrative. quite apart from any attempt to discover precisely what that motive was, it is desirable that we should briefly point out some of these peculiarities. it is evident that every man who writes a history must commence with a distinct plan, and that the choice of subjects to be introduced or omitted must proceed upon a certain principle. this is of course an invariable rule wherever there is order and arrangement. no one has ever questioned that in the acts of the apostles both order and arrangement have been deliberately adopted and the question naturally arises: what was the plan ol the author? and upon what principle did he select, from the mass of facts which might have been related regarding the church in the apostolic ages, precisely those { } which he has inserted, to the exclusion of the rest?( ) what title will adequately represent the contents of the book? for it is admitted by almost all critics that the actual name which the book bears neither was given to it by its author nor properly describes its intention and subject.( ) the extreme difficulty which has been felt in answering these questions, and in constructing any hypothesis which may fairly correspond with the actual contents of the acts, constitutes one of the most striking commentaries on the work, and although we cannot here detail the extremely varied views of critics upon the subject, they are well worthy of study.( ) no one now advances the theory which was anciently current that the author simply narrated that of which he was an eye-witness.( ) its present title [------] would lead us to expect an account of the doings of the apostles in general, but we have nothing like this in the book. peter and paul occupy the principal parts of the narrative, and the other apostles are scarcely mentioned. { } james is introduced as an actor in the famous council, and represented as head of the church in jerusalem, but it is much disputed that he was either an apostle, or one of the twelve. the death of james the brother of john is just mentioned. john is represented on several occasions during the earlier part of the narrative as the companion of peter, without, however, being prominently brought forward; and the rest of the twelve are left in complete obscurity. it is not a history of the labours of peter and paul, for not only is considerable importance given to the episodes of stephen and philip the evangelist, but the account of the two great apostles is singularly fragmentary. after a brief chronicle of the labours of peter, he suddenly disappears from the scene, and we hear of him no more. paul then becomes the prominent figure in the drama; but we have already pointed out how defective is the information given regarding him, and he is also abandoned as soon as he is brought to rome: of his subsequent career and martyrdom, nothing whatever is said. the work is not, as luther suggested, a gloss on the epistles of paul and the inculcation of his doctrine of righteousness through faith, for the narrative of the acts, so far as we can compare it with the epistles, which are nowhere named in it, is generally in contradiction to them, and the doctrine of justification by faith is conspicuous by its absence. it is not a history of the first christian missions, for it ignores entirely the labours of most of the apostles, omits all mention of some of the most interesting missionary journeys, and does not even give a report of the introduction of christianity into rome. it is not in any sense a paulinian history of the church, for if, on the one side, it describes the apostles of the circumcision as { } promulgating the universalism which paul preached, it robs him of his originality, dwarfs his influence upon the development of christianity, and is, on the other hand, too defective to represent church history, whether from a paulinian or any other standpoint. the favourite theory: that the writer designed to relate the story of the spread of christianity from jerusalem to rome, can scarcely be maintained, although it certainly has the advantage of a vagueness of proportions equally suitable to the largest and most limited treatment of history. but, in such a case, we have a drama with the main incident omitted; for the introduction of the gospel into rome is not described at all, and whilst the author could not consider the personal arrival at rome of the apostle paul the climax of his history, he at once closes his account where the final episode ought to have commenced. from all points of view, and upon any hypothesis, the acts of the apostles is so obviously incomplete as a history, so fragmentary and defective as biography, that critics have to the present day failed in framing any theory which could satisfactorily account for its anomalies, and have almost been forced to explain them by supposing a partial, apologetic or conciliatory, design, which removes the work from the region of veritable history. the whole interest of the narrative, of course, centres in the two representative apostles, peter and paul, who alternately fill the scene. it is difficult to say, however, whether the account of the apostle of the circumcision or of paul is the more capriciously partial and incomplete. after his miraculous liberation from the prison into which he had been cast by herod, the doings of peter are left unchronicled, and although he is reintroduced for a moment to plead the cause of the { } gentiles at the council in jerusalem, he then finally retires from the scene, to give place to paul. the omissions from the history of paul are very remarkable, and all the more so from the extreme and unnecessary detail of the itinerary of some of his journeys, and neither the blanks, on the one hand, nor the excessive minuteness, on the other, are to be explained by any theory connected with personal knowledge on the part of theophilus. of the general history of the primitive church and the life and labours of the twelve, we are told little or nothing. according to the author the propagation of the gospel was carried on more by angelic agency than apostolic enthusiasm. there is a liberal infusion of miraculous episodes in the history, but a surprising scarcity of facts. even where the author is best informed, as in the second part of the acts, the narrative of paul's labours and missionary journeys, while presenting striking omissions, is really minute and detailed only in regard to points of no practical interest, leaving both the distinctive teaching of the apostle, and the internal economy of the church almost entirely unrepresented. does this defective narrative of the acts of the apostles proceed from poverty of information, or from the arbitrary selection of materials for a special purpose? as we proceed, it will become increasingly evident that, limited although the writer's materials are, the form into which they have been moulded has undoubtedly been determined either by a dominant theory, or a deliberate design, neither of which is consistent with the composition of sober history. this is particularly apparent in the representation which is given of the two principal personages of the narrative. critics have long clearly recognised that the { } author of the acts has carefully arranged his materials so as to present as close a parallelism as possible between the apostles peter and paul.( ) we shall presently see how closely he assimilates their teaching, ascribing the views of paul to peter, and putting petrine sentiments in the mouth of paul, but here we shall merely refer to points of general history. if peter has a certain pre-eminence as a distinguished member of the original apostolic body, the equal claim of paul to the honours of the apostolate, whilst never directly advanced, is prominently suggested by the narration, no less than three times, of the circumstances of his conversion and direct call to the office by the glorified jesus. the first miracle ascribed to peter is the healing of "a certain man lame from his mother's womb" [------] at the beautiful gate of the temple,( ) and the first wonder performed by paul is also the healing of "a certain man lame from his mother's womb" [------] at lystra;( ) ananias and sapphira are punished through the instrumentality of peter,( ) and elymas is smitten with blindness at the word of paul;( ) the sick are laid in the streets that the shadow of peter may fall upon them, and they are healed, as are also those { } vexed with unclean spirits;(l) handkerchiefs or aprons are taken to the sick from the body of paul, and they are healed, and the evil spirits go out of them;( ) peter withstands simon the sorcerer,( ) as paul does the sorcerer elymas and the exorcists at ephesus;( ) if peter heals the paralytic Æneas at lydda,( ) paul restores to health the fever-stricken father of publius at melita;( ) peter raises from the dead tabitha, a disciple at joppa,( ) and paul restores to life the disciple eutychus at troas;( ) cornelius falls at the feet of peter, and worships him, peter preventing him, and saying: "rise up! i myself also am a man,"( ) and in like manner the people of lystra would have done sacrifice to paul, and he prevents them, crying out: "we also are men of like passions with you;"( ) peter lays his hands on the people of samaria, and they receive, the holy ghost and the gift of tongues,( ) and paul does the same for believers at ephesus;( ) peter is brought before the council,( ) and so is paul;( ) the one is imprisoned and twice released by an angel,( ) and the other is delivered from his bonds by a great earthquake;( ) if peter be scourged by order of the council,( ) paul is beaten with many stripes at the command of the magistrates of philippi.( ) it is maintained that the desire to equalise the sufferings of the two apostles in the cause of the gospel, as he has equalised their miraculous displays, probably led the author to omit all mention of those { } perils and persecutions to which the apostle paul refers in support of his protest, that he had laboured and suffered more than all the rest.( ) if paul was called by a vision to the ministry of the gentiles,( ) so peter is represented as having been equally directed by a vision to baptize the gentile cornelius;( ) the double vision of peter and cornelius has its parallel in the double vision of paul and ananias. it is impossible to deny the measured equality thus preserved between the two apostles, or to ignore the fact that parallelism like this is the result of premeditation, and cannot claim the character of impartial history. the speeches form an important element in the acts of the apostles, and we shall now briefly examine them, reserving, however, for future consideration their dogmatic aspect. few, if any writers, however apologetic, maintain that these discourses can possibly have been spoken exactly as they are recorded in the acts. the utmost that is asserted is that they are substantially historical, and fairly represent the original speeches.( ) they were derived, it is alleged, either from written sources, or oral { } tradition, and many, especially in the second part, are supposed to have been delivered in the presence of the author of the work. this view is held, of course, with a greater or less degree of assurance as to the closeness of the relation which our record bears to the original addresses; but, without here very closely scrutinizing hesitation or reticence, our statement fairly renders the apologetic position. a large body of able critics, however, deny the historical character of these speeches,( ) and consider them mere free compositions by the author of the acts, at the best being on a par with the speeches which many ancient writers place in the mouths of their historical personages, and giving only what the writer supposed that the speaker would say under the circumstances. that the writer may have made use of such materials as were within his reach, or endeavoured to embody the ideas which tradition may broadly have preserved, may possibly be admitted, but that these discourses can seriously be accepted as conveying a correct report of anything actually spoken by the persons in whose mouths they are put is, of course, denied. it is, { } obviously, extremely improbable that any of these speeches could have been written down at the time.( ) taking even the supposed case that the author of the acts was luke, and was present when some of the speeches of paul were delivered, it is difficult to imagine that he immediately recorded his recollection of them, and more than this he could not have done. he must continually have been in the habit of hearing the preaching of paul, and therefore could not have had the inducement of novelty to make him write down what he heard. the idea of recording them for posterity could not have occurred to such a person, with the belief in the approaching end of all things then prevalent. the author of the acts was not the companion of paul, however, and the contents of the speeches, as we shall presently see, are not of a character to make it in the least degree likely that they could have been written down for separate circulation. many of the speeches in the acts, moreover, were delivered under circumstances which render it specially unlikely that they could have { } been reported with any accuracy. at no time an easy task correctly to record a discourse of any length, it is doubly difficult when those speeches, like many in acts, were spoken under circumstances of great danger or excitement. the experience of modern times, before the application of systems of short-hand, may show how imperfectly speeches were taken down, even where there was deliberate preparation and set purpose to do so, and if it be suggested that some celebrated orations of the last century have so been preserved, it is undeniable that what has been handed down to us not only does not represent the original, but is really almost a subsequent composition, preserving little more than some faint echoes of the true utterance. the probability that a correct record of speeches made, under such circumstances, in the middle of the first century could have been kept, seems exceedingly small. even, if it could be shown that the author of the acts took these speeches substantially from earlier documents, it would not materially tend to establish their authenticity; for the question would still remain perfectly open as to the closeness of those documents to the original discourses; but in the absence of all evidence, whether as to the existence or origin of any such sources, the conjecture of their possible existence can have no weight. we have nothing but internal testimony to examine, and that, we shall see, is totally opposed to the claim to historical value made for those discourses. apologists scarcely maintain that we have in the acts a record of the original discourses in their completeness, but in claiming substantial accuracy most of them include the supposition at least of condensation.( ) the longest { } discourse in the acts would not have taken more than six or seven minutes to deliver,( ) and it is impossible to suppose that what is there given can have been the whole speech delivered on many of the occasions described. for instance, is it probable that king agrippa who desires to hear paul, and who comes "with great pomp" with berenice to do so, should only have heard a speech lasting some five minutes. the author himself tells us that paul was not always so brief in his addresses as any one might suppose from the specimens here presented.( ) it is remarkable, however, that not the slightest intimation is given that the speeches are either merely substantially reported or are abridged, and their form and character are evidently designed to convey the impression of complete discourses. if the reader examine any of these discourses, it will be clear that they are concise compositions, betraying no marks of abridgment, and having no fragmentary looseness, but, on the contrary, that they are highly artificial and finished productions, with a continuous argument. they certainly are singularly inadequate, many of them, to produce the impressions described; but at least it is not possible to discover that material omissions have been made, or that their periods were originally expanded by large, or even any, amplification. if these speeches be regarded as complete, and with little or no condensation, another strong element is added to the suspicion as to their authenticity, for such extreme baldness and brevity in the declaration of a new religion, { } requiring both explanation and argument, cannot be conceived, and in the case of paul, with whose system of teaching and doctrine we are well acquainted through his epistles, it is impossible to accept such meagre and onesided addresses, as representations of his manner. the statement that the discourses are abridged, and a mere _résumé_ of those originally delivered, however, rests upon no authority, is a mere conjecture to account for an existing difficulty, and is in contradiction to the actual form of the speeches in acts. regarded as complete, their incongruity is intensified, but considered as abridged, they have lost in the process all representative character and historical fitness. it has been argued, indeed, that the different speeches bear evidence to their genuineness from their suitability to the speakers, and to the circumstances under which they are said to have been spoken; but the existence of anything but the most superficial semblance of idiosyncratic character must be denied. the similarity of form, manner, and matter in all the speeches is most remarkable, as will presently be made more apparent, and the whole of the doctrine enunciated amounts to little more than the repetition, in slightly varying words, of the brief exhortation to repentance and belief in jesus, the christ. that salvation may be obtained,( ) with references to the ancient history of the jews, singularly alike in all discourses. very little artistic skill is necessary to secure a certain suitability of the word to the action, and the action to the word; and certainly evidence is reduced to a very low ebb when such agreement as is presented in the acts is made an argument for authenticity. not only is the consistency of the sentiments uttered by { } the principal speakers, as compared with what is known of their opinions and character, utterly disputed, but it must be evident that the literary skill of the author of the acts was quite equal to so simple a task as preserving" at least such superficial fitness as he displays, and a very much greater amount of verisimilitude might have been attained, as in many works of fiction, without necessarily involving the inference of genuineness. it has been freely admitted by critics of all schools that the author's peculiarities of style and language are apparent in all the speeches of the acts,( ) and this has been so often elaborately demonstrated that it is unnecessary minutely to enter upon it again. it may not be out of place to quote a few lines from the work of one of the ablest and most eminent advocates of the general authority of the acts. speaking of the speeches of paul, lekebusch says:--"the speeches of our book, in fact, are calculated, perhaps more than anything, to excite doubt regarding its purely historical character. but here everything depends upon an unbiassed judgment. we are sufficiently free from prejudice to make the admission to recent criticism that the speeches are not verbally given as they were originally delivered, but are composed by the author of the acts of the { } apostles. schleiermacher, certainly, has confidently asserted their originality. he thinks: 'if the speeches were separately reported they could not but appear just as we find them in the acts of the apostles.' but his remarks, however ingenious and acute they may be, do not stand the test of a thorough examination of the individual speeches. no one who impartially compares these, one with another, and particularly their style with the mode of expression of the author in the other sections, can help agreeing with eichhorn, when, in consonance with his view regarding the uniform character of the acts, on the grounds quoted, page , he ascribes the composition of the speeches to the writer from whom the whole book in all its parts proceeds."( ) to this impartial expression of opinion, lekebusch adds a note:--"in saying this, it is naturally not suggested that our author simply _invented_ the speeches, independently, without any historical intimation whatever as to the substance of the original; the_ form_ only, which certainly is here very closely connected with the substance, is hereby ascribed to him."( ) lekebusch then merely goes on to discuss the nature of the author's design in composing these speeches. the reasons given by eichhorn, which lekebusch quotes at "page ," referred to above, had better be added to complete this testimony. after referring to the result of eichhorn's "very careful examination" of the internal character of the acts, lekebusch says:--"he finds, however, that, 'throughout the whole acts of the apostles there prevails the same style, the same manner, the same method and mode of expression' (ii. ). not { } even the speeches, which one at first might take for inserted documents, seem to him 'from a strange hand, but elaborated by the same from which the whole book, with its three parts, proceeds.' 'various peculiarities existing in the speeches' prove this to him, independent of the similarity of the style, and that, 'although they are put into the mouths of different persons, they nevertheless follow one and the same type, make use of one and the same mode of argument, and have so much that is common to them that they thereby prove themselves to be speeches of one and the same writer' (ii. ). from these circumstances, therefore, it seems to eichhorn 'in the highest degree probable, that luke, throughout the whole acts of the apostles, writes as an independent author, and apart from all extraneous works.' and in this view he is 'strengthened by the resemblance of the style which runs through the whole acts of the apostles, through speeches, letters, and historical sections,' as well as by the fact that, 'through the whole book, in the quotations from the old testament, a similar relation prevails between the greek text of the septuagint and that of luke' (ii. )."( ) we have thought it well to quote these independent opinions from writers who range themselves amongst the defenders of the historical character of the acts, rather than to burden our pages with a mass of dry detail in proof of the assertion that the peculiarities of the author pervade all the speeches indifferently, to a degree which renders it obvious that. they proceed from his pen. without entering into mere linguistic evidence of this, which will be found in the works to which we have { } referred,( ) we may point out a few general peculiarities of this nature which are worthy of attention. the author introduces the speeches of different persons with the same expression:--"he opened his mouth," or something similar. philip "opened his mouth" [------]( ) and addressed the ethiopian (viii. ). peter "opened his mouth (and) said" [------], when he delivered his discourse before the baptism of cornelius (x. ). again, he uses it of paul:--"and when paul was about to open his mouth [------], gallio said," &c. (xviii. ). the words with which the speech of peter at pentecost is introduced deserve more attention:--"peter lifted up his voice and said unto them" [------] (ii. ). the verb [------] occurs again (ii. ) in the account of the descent of the holy spirit and the gift of tongues, and it is put into the mouth of paul (xxvi. ) in his reply to festus, but it occurs nowhere else in the new testament. the favourite formula( ) with which all speeches open is, "men (and) brethren" [------], or [------] coupled with some other term, as "men (and) israelites" [------], or simply[------] without addition. [------], occurs no less than thirteen times. it is used thrice by peter,( ) six times by paul,( ) as well as by { } stephen,( ) james,( ) the believers at pentecost,( ) and the rulers of the synagogue.( ) the angels at the ascension address the disciples as "men (and) galileans" [------].( ) peter makes use of [------] twice,( ) and it is likewise employed by paul,( ) by gamaliel,( ) and by the jews of asia.( ) peter addresses those assembled at pentecost as [------].( ) paul opens his athenian speech with [------],( ) and the town-clerk begins his short appeal to the craftsmen of ephesus: [------].( ) stephen begins his speech to the council with men, brethren and fathers, hear [------], and paul uses the very same words in addressing the multitude from the stairs of the temple.( ) in the speech which peter is represented as making at pentecost, he employs in an altogether peculiar way (ii. -- ) psalm xvi., quoting it in order to prove that the resurrection of jesus the messiah was a necessary occurrence, which had been foretold by david. this is principally based upon the tenth verse of the psalm: "because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou give thy holy one [------] to see corruption [------]."( ) peter argues that david both died and was buried, and that his sepulchre is with them to that day, but that, being a prophet, he foresaw and spake here of the resurrection of christ, "that neither was he left in hades nor did his flesh see { } corruption {------}."( ) is it not an extremely singular circumstance that peter, addressing an audience of jews in jerusalem, where he might naturally be expected to make use of the vernacular language, actually quotes the sep-tuagint version of the old testament, and bases his argument upon a mistranslation of the psalm, which, we may add, was in all probability not composed by david at all?( ) the word translated "holy one," should be in the plural: "holy ones,"{ } that is to say: "thy saints," and the word rendered [------]corruption, really signifies "grave" or "pit." the poet, in fact, merely expresses his confidence that he will be preserved alive. the best critics recognize that ps. xvi. is not properly a messianic psalm { } at all,( ) and many of those who, from the use which is made of it in acts, are led to assert that it is so, recognize in the main that it can only be applied to the messiah indirectly, by arguing that the prophecy was not fulfilled in the case of the poet who speaks of himself, but was fulfilled in the resurrection of jesus. this reasoning, however, totally ignores the sense of the original, and is opposed to all legitimate historical interpretation of the psalm. not dwelling upon this point at present, we must go on to point out that, a little further on (xiii. -- ), the apostle paul is represented as making use of the very same argument which peter here employs, and quoting the same passage from ps. xvi. to support it this repetition of very peculiar reasoning, coupled with other similarities which we shall presently point out, leads to the inference that it is merely the author himself who puts this argument into their mouths,( ) and this conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that, throughout both gospel and acts, he always quotes from the septuagint,( ) and even when that version departs from { } the sense of the original it may be well to give both passages in juxta-position, in order that the closeness of the analogy may be more easily realized. for this purpose we somewhat alter the order of the verses:-- [------] not only is this argument the same in both discourses, but the whole of paul's speech, xiii. ff., is a mere reproduction of the two speeches of peter, ii. ff. and iii. ff., with such alterations as the writer could introduce to vary the fundamental sameness of ideas and expressions. it is worth while to show this in a similar way:-- [------] { } [------] { } [------] { } paul's address likewise hears close analogy with the speech of stephen, vii. ff., commencing with a historical survey of the earlier traditions of the people of israel, and leading up to the same accusation that, as their fathers disregarded the prophets, so they had persecuted and slain the christ. the whole treatment of the subject betrays the work of the same mind in both discourses. bleek, who admits the similarity between these and other speeches in acts, argues that: "it does not absolutely follow from this that these speeches are composed by one and the same person, and are altogether unhistorical;" for it is natural, he thinks, that in the apostolical circle, and in the first christian church, there should have existed a certain uniform type in the application of messianic passages of the old testament, and in quotations generally, to which different teachers might conform without being dependent on each other. he thinks also that, along with the close analogy, there is also much which is characteristic in the different speeches. not only is this typical system of quotation, however, a mere conjecture to explain an actual difficulty, but it is totally inadequate to account for the phenomena. if we suppose, for instance, that paul had adopted the totally unhistorical application of the sixteenth psalm to the messiah, is it not a very extraordinary thing that in all the arguments in his { } epistles, he does not once refer to it? even if this be waived, and it be assumed that he had adopted this interpretation of the psalm, it will scarcely be asserted that paul, whose independence and originality of mind are so undeniable, and whose intercourse with the apostolical circle at any time, and most certainly up to the period when this speech was delivered, was very limited,( ) could so completely have caught the style and copied the manner of peter that, on an important occasion like this, his address should be a mere reproduction of peter's two speeches delivered so long before, and when paul certainly was not present. the similarity of these discourses does not consist in the mere application of the same psalm, but the whole argument, on each occasion, is repeated with merely sufficient transposition of its various parts to give a superficial appearance of variety. words and expressions, rare or unknown elsewhere, are found in both, and the characteristic differences which bleek finds exist only in his own apologetic imagination. let it be remembered that the form of the speeches and the language are generally ascribed to the author of the acts. can any unprejudiced critic deny that the ideas in the speeches we are considering are also substantially the same? is there any appreciable trace of the originality of paul in his discourses? there is no ground whatever, apart from the antecedent belief that the various speeches were actually delivered by the men to whom they are ascribed, for asserting that we have here the independent utterances of peter and paul. it is internal evidence alone, and no avowal on the part of the author, which leads to the conclusion that the form of the speeches is the author's, and there is no internal evidence { } which requires us to stop at the mere form, and not equally ascribe the substance to the same source. the speeches in the acts, generally, have altogether the character of being the composition of one mind endeavouring to impart variety of thought and expression to various speakers, but failing signally either from poverty of invention or from the purpose of instituting a close parallel in views, as well as actions, between the two representative apostles. further to illustrate this, let us take another speech of peter which he delivers on the occasion of the conversion of cornelius, and it will be apparent that it also contains all the elements, so far as it goes, of paul's discourse. [------] { } [------] again, to take an example from another speaker, we find james represented as using an expression which had just before been put into the mouth of paul, and it is not one in the least degree likely to occur independently to each. the two passages are as follows:-- [------] the fundamental similarity between these different speeches cannot possibly be denied;( ) and it cannot be { } reasonably explained in any other way than by the fact that they were composed by the author himself, who had the earlier speeches ascribed to peter still in his memory when he wrote those of paul,( ) and who, in short, had not sufficient dramatic power to create altogether distinct characters, but simply made his different personages use his own vocabulary to express his own somewhat limited range of ideas. setting his special design aside, his inventive faculty only permitted him to represent peter speaking like paul, and paul like peter. it is argued by some, however, that in the speeches of peter, for instance, there are peculiarities of language and expression which show analogy with the first epistle bearing his name in the new testament canon,( ) and, on the other hand, traces of translation in some of them which indicate that these speeches were delivered originally in aramaic, and that we have only a version of them by the author of the acts, or by some one from whom he derived them.( ) as regards the first of these suppositions, a few phrases only have been pointed out, but they are of no force under any circumstances, and the whole theory is quite groundless.( ) we do not con- { } consider it worth while to enter upon the discussion, and those who desire to do so are referred to the works just indicated. there are two potent reasons which render such an argument of no force, even if the supposed analogies were in themselves both numerous and striking, which actually they are not the authenticity of the epistles bearing the name of peter is not only not established, but is by very many eminent critics absolutely denied; and there is no certainty whatever that any of the speeches of peter were delivered in greek, and the probability is that most, if not all, of that apostle's genuine discourses must have been spoken in aramaic. it is in fact asserted by apologists that part or all of the speeches ascribed to him in the acts must have been originally aramaic, although opinion may differ as to the language in which some of them were spoken. whether they were delivered in aramaic, or whether there be uncertainty on the point, any conclusion from linguistic analogies with the epistles is obviously excluded. one thing is quite undeniable: the supposed analogies are few, and the peculiarities distinguishing the author of acts in these speeches are extremely numerous and general. even so thorough an apologist as tholuck candidly acknowledges that the attempt to prove the authenticity of the speeches from linguistic analogies is hopeless. he says: "nevertheless, a comparison of the language of the apostles in their epistles and in these speeches must in many respects be less admissible than that of the character and historical circumstances, for indeed if the language and their peculiarities be compared, it must first be established that all the reported speeches were delivered in the greek language, which is improbable, and of one of which (xxii. , ) the contrary is expressly { } stated willingly admitting that upon this point difference of opinion is allowable, we express as the view which we have hitherto held that, from ch. xx. onwards, the speeches delivered by paul are reported more in the language of luke than in that of paul."( ) this applies with double force to peter,( ) whose speeches there is still greater reason to believe were delivered in aramaic, and there is difference of opinion amongst the critics we have referred to even as to whether these speeches were translated by the author of the acts, or were already before him in a translated form, and were subsequently re-edited by him. we have already shown cause for believing that the whole discussion is groundless, from the fact that the speeches in acts were simply composed by the author himself, and are not in any sense historical, and this we shall hereafter further illustrate. it may be worth while to consider briefly the arguments advanced for the theory that some of the speeches show marks of translation. it is asserted that the speech of peter at pentecost, ii. ff., was delivered in aramaic.( ) of course it will be understood that we might { } be quite prepared to agree to this statement as applied to a speech actually delivered by peter; but the assertion, so far as the speeches in acts are concerned, is based upon what we believe to be the erroneous supposition that they are genuine reports of discourses. on the contrary, we maintain that these speeches are mere compositions by the author of the work. the contention is, however, that the speech attributed to peter is the translation of a speech originally delivered in aramaic. in ii. , peter is represented as saying: "whom god raised up having loosed the pains of death [------], because it is not possible that he should be held [------] by it." it is argued by bleek and others( ) that, as the context proves, the image intended here was evidently the "snares" or "cords" of death, a meaning which is not rendered by the greek word [------]. the confusion is explained, they contend, when it is supposed that, in his aramaic speech, peter made use of a hebrew expression, equally found in aramaic, which means as well "snares" or "cords" as "pains" of death. the greek translator, probably misled by the septuagint,( ) adopted the latter signification of the hebrew word in question, and rendered it [------] "pains," which is absolutely inappropriate, for, they argue, it is very unnatural to say of one who had already suffered death, like christ, that he had been held prisoner by the "pains" of death, and loosed from them by the resurrection. there is, however, very little unanimity { } amongst apologists about this passage. ebrard( ) asserts that [------] "pains" is the correct translation of the hebrew expression, as in ps. xviii. , and that the hebrew word used always expresses pains of birth, the plural of the similar word for "cord" or "snare" being different. ebrard, therefore, contends that the psalm (xviii. ) does not mean bonds or snares of death but literally "birth-pains of death," by which the soul is freed from the natural earthly existence as by a second birth to a glorified spiritual life. we need not enter further into the discussion of the passage, but it is obvious that it is mere assumption to assert, on the one hand, that peter made use of any specific expression, and, on the other, that there was any error of translation on the part of the author of acts. but agreeing that the hebrew is erroneously rendered,( ) the only pertinent question is: by whom was the error in question committed? and the reply beyond any doubt is: by the lxx. who translate the hebrew expression in this very way. it is therefore inadmissible to assert from this phrase the existence of an aramaic original of the speech, for the phrase itself is nothing but a quotation from the sep-tuagint.( ) the expression [------] occurs no less than three times in that version: ps. xvii. (a. v. xviii.), cxiv. (a. v. cxvi.) and sam. xxii. ; and in job { } xxxix. , we have [------]. when it is remembered that the author of acts always quotes the septuagint version, even when it departs from the sense of the hebrew original, and in all probability was only acquainted with the old testament through it, nothing is more natural than the use of this expression taken from that version; but with the error already existing there, to ascribe it afresh and independently to the author of acts, upon no other grounds than the assumption that peter may have spoken in aramaic, and used an expression which the author misunderstood or wrongly rendered, is not permissible. indeed, we have already pointed out that, in this very speech, there are quotations of the old testament according to the lxx. put into the mouth of peter, in which that version does not accurately render the original.( ) the next trace of translation advanced by bleek( ) is found in ii. ,( ) where peter speaks of christ as exalted: "[------]." there can be no doubt, bleek argues, that there is here a reference to psalm ex. , and that the apostle intends to speak of christ's elevation "_to_ the right (hand) of god;" whereas the greek expression rather conveys the interpretation: "_by_ the right (hand) of god." this expression certainly comes, he asserts, from a not altogether suitable translation of the hebrew. to this on the other hand, much may be objected. winer,( ) followed by others, defends the construction, and affirms that the passage may without { } hesitation, be translated "_to_ the right (hand) of god."( ) in which case there is no error at all, and the argument falls to the ground. if it be taken, however, either that the rendering should be or was intended to be "by the right (hand) of god"( ) i.e., by the power of god, that would not involve the necessity of admitting an aramaic original,( ) because there is no error at all, and the argument simply is, that being exalted by the right hand of god, jesus had poured forth the holy spirit; and in the next verse the passage in ps. ex. (sept. cix.) is accurately quoted from the septuagint version: "sit thou on my right (hand)" [------]. in fact, after giving an account of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of jesus, the speaker ascribes his subsequent exaltation to the power of god.( ) we have seen that at least the form of the speeches in acts is undoubtedly due to the author of the book, and that he has not been able to make the speeches of the different personages in his drama differ materially from each other. we shall hereafter have occasion to examine further the contents of some of these speeches, and the circumstances under which it is alleged that they were spoken, and to inquire whether these do not confirm { } the conclusion hitherto arrived at, that they are not historical, but merely the free composition of the author of acts, and never delivered at all. before passing on, however, it may be well to glance for a moment at one of these speeches, to which we may not have another opportunity of referring, in order that we may see whether it presents any traces of inauthenticity and of merely ideal composition. in the first chapter an account is given of a meeting of the brethren in order to elect a successor to the traitor judas. peter addresses the assembly, i. if., and it may be well to quote the opening portion of his speech: . "men (and) brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy spirit by the mouth of david spake before concerning judas, who became guide to them that took jesus, . because he was numbered with us and obtained the lot of this ministry. . now [------] this man purchased a field with the wages of the iniquity [------], and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; . and [------] it became known( ) unto all the dwellers at jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own tongue [------] acheldamach, that is: field of blood. . for [------] it is written in the book of psalms: 'let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein,' and 'his office let another take,'" &c, &c. now let it be remembered that peter is supposed to be addressing an audience of jews in jerusalem, in the hebrew or aramaic language, a few { } weeks after the crucifixion. is it possible, therefore, that he should give such an account as that in vs. , , of the end of judas, which he himself, indeed, says was known to all the dwellers at jerusalem? is it possible that, speaking in aramaic to jews, probably in most part living at and near jerusalem, he could have spoken of the field being so called by the people of jerusalem "in their own tongue?" is it possible that he should, to such an audience, have translated the word acheldamach? the answer of most unprejudiced critics is that peter could not have done so.( ) as de wette remarks: "in the composition of this speech the author has not considered historical decorum."( ) this is felt by most apologists, and many ingenious theories are advanced to explain away the difficulty. some affirm that verses and are inserted as a parenthesis by the author of the acts,( ) whilst a larger number contend that only v. is parenthetic.( ) a very cursory examination of the passage, however, is sufficient to show that the verses cannot be separated. verse is connected with the preceding by the [------], with by [------], and verse refers to , as indeed it also does to and , without which the passage from the psalm, as applied to judas, would be unintelligible. most critics, therefore, { } are agreed that none of the verses can be considered parenthetic.( ) some apologists, however, who feel that neither of the obnoxious verses can be thus explained, endeavour to overcome the difficulty by asserting that the words: "in their own tongue" [------] and: "that is: the field of blood" [------] in verse , are merely explanatory and inserted by the author of acts.( ) it is unnecessary to say that this explanation is purely arbitrary, and that there is no ground, except the difficulty itself, upon which their exclusion from the speech can be based. in the cases to which we have hitherto referred, the impossibility of supposing that peter could have spoken in this way has led writers to lay the responsibility of unacknowledged interpolations in the speech upon the author of acts, thus at once relieving the apostle. there are some apologists, however, who do not adopt this expedient, but attempt to meet the difficulty in other ways, while accepting the whole as a speech of peter. according to one theory, those who object that peter could not have thus related the death of judas to people who must already have been well acquainted with the circumstances have totally overlooked the fact, that a peculiar view of what has occurred is taken in the narrative, and that this peculiar view is the principal point of it according to the statement made, judas met his miserable end in the very field which he had bought with { } the price of blood. it is this circumstance, it appears, which peter brings prominently forward and represents as a manifest and tangible dispensation of divine justice.( ) unfortunately, however, this is clearly an imaginary moral attached to the narrative by the apologist, and is not the object of the supposed speaker, who rather desires to justify the forced application to judas of the quotations in verse , which are directly connected with the preceding by [------]. moreover, no explanation is here offered of the extraordinary expressions in verse addressed to citizens of jerusalem by a jew in their own tongue. another explanation, which includes these points, is still more striking. with regard to the improbability of peter's relating, in such a way, the death of judas, it is argued that, according to the evangelists, the disciples went from jerusalem back to galilee some eight days after the resurrection, and only returned, earlier than usual, before pentecost to await the fulfilment of the promise of jesus. peter and his companions, it is supposed, only after their return became acquainted with the fate of judas, which had taken place during their absence, and the matter was, therefore, quite new to them; besides, it is added, a speaker is often obliged on account of some connection with his subject to relate facts already known.( ) it is true that some of the evangelists represent this return to galilee( ) as having taken place, but the author of the third gospel and the acts not only mt. xxviii. , ; mk. xvi. ; john xxi. . i)r. farrar, somewhat pertinently, asks: "why did they (the disciples) not go to galilee immediately on receiving our lord's message? the circumstance is unexplained... perhaps the entire message of jesus to them is not recorded; perhaps they awaited the end of the feast." life of christ, ii. p. , note . { } does not do so but excludes it.( ) in the third gospel (xxiv. ), jesus commands the disciples to remain in jerusalem until they are endued with power from on high, and then, after blessing them, he is parted from them, and they return from bethany to jerusalem.( ) in acts, the author again takes up the theme, and whilst evidently giving later traditions regarding the appearances after the resurrection, he adheres to his version of the story regarding the command to stay in jerusalem. in i. , he says: "and being assembled together with them he commanded them not to depart from jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the father," etc.; and here again, verse , the disciples are represented, just before peter's speech is supposed to have been delivered, as returning from the mount of olives to jerusalem. the author of acts and of the third synoptic, therefore, gives no countenance to this theory. besides, setting all this aside, the apologetic hypothesis we are discussing is quite excluded upon other grounds. if we suppose that the disciples did go into galilee for a time, we find them again in jerusalem at the election of the successor to judas, and there is no reason to believe that they had only just returned. the acts not only allow of no interval at all for the journey to galilee between i. - and ff., but by the simple statement we shall hereafter have to go more fully into this, and shall not discuss it here. the third gospel really represents the ascension as taking place on the day of the resurrection; and acts, whilst giving later tradition, and making the ascension occur forty days after, does not amend, but confirms the previously enunciated view that the disciples had been ordered to stay in jerusalem. { } with which our episode commences, v. : "and in these days" [------], peter conveys anything but the impression of any very recent return to jerusalem. if the apostles had been even a few days there, the incongruity of the speech would remain undiminished; for the brethren who are said to have been present must chiefly have been residents in jerusalem, and cannot be. supposed also to have been absent, and, in any case, events which are represented as so well known to all the dwellers in jerusalem, must certainly have been familiar to the small christian community, whose interest in the matter was so specially great. moreover, according to the first synoptic, as soon as judas sees that jesus is condemned, he brings the money back to the chief priests, casts it down and goes and hangs himself, xxvii. ff. this is related even before the final condemnation of jesus and before his crucifixion, and the reader is led to believe that judas at once put an end to himself, so that the disciples, who are represented as being still in jerusalem for at least eight days after the resurrection, must have been there at the time. with regard to the singular expressions in verse , this theory goes on to suppose that, out of consideration for greek fellow-believers, peter had probably already begun to speak in the greek tongue; and when he designates the language of the dwellers in jerusalem as "their own dialect," he does not thereby mean hebrew in itself, but their own expression, the peculiar confession of the opposite party, which admitted the cruel treachery towards jesus, in that they named the piece of ground hakel damah.( ) here, again, what assumptions! it is generally recognized that peter must have spoken in { } aramaic, and even if he did not, [------]( ) cannot mean anything but the language of "all the-dwellers at jerusalem." in a speech delivered at jerusalem, in any language, to an audience consisting at least in considerable part of inhabitants of the place, and certainly almost entirely of persons whose native tongue was aramaic, to tell them that the inhabitants called a certain field "in their own tongue" acheldamach, giving them at the same time a translation of the word, is inconceivable to most critics, even including apologists. there is another point which indicates not only that this theory is inadequate to solve the difficulty, but that the speech could not have been delivered by peter a few weeks after the occurrences related. it is stated that the circumstances narrated were so well known to the inhabitants of jerusalem, that the field was called in their own tongue acheldamach. the origin of this name is not ascribed to the priests or rulers, but to the people, and it is not to be supposed that a popular name could have become attached to this field, and so generally adopted as the text represents, within the very short time which could have elapsed between the death of judas and the delivery of this speech. be it remembered that from the time of the crucifixion to pentecost the interval was in all only about seven weeks, and that this speech was made some time before pentecost, how long we cannot tell, but in any case, the interval was much too brief to permit of the popular adoption of the name.( ) the whole passage has much more the character of a narrative of { } events which had occurred at a time long past, than of circumstances which had taken place a few days before. the obvious conclusion is that this speech was never spoken by peter, but is a much later composition put into his mouth, and written for greek readers, who required to be told about judas, and for whose benefit the hebrew name of the field, inserted for local colouring, had to be translated. this is confirmed by several circumstances, to which we may refer. we shall not dwell much upon the fact that peter is represented as applying to judas two passages quoted from the septuagint version of ps. lxix. (sept lxviii.) and ps. cix. (sept cviii.) which, historically, cannot for a moment be sustained as referring to him.( ) the first of these psalms is quoted freely, and moreover the denunciations in the original being against a plurality of enemies, it can only be made applicable to judas by altering the plural "their" [------] to "his habitation" [------], a considerable liberty to take with prophecy. the holy spirit is said to have { } spoken this prophecy "concerning judas" "by the mouth of david," but modern research has led critics to hold it as most probable that neither ps. lxix.( ) nor ps. cix.( ) was composed by david at all. as we know nothing of peter's usual system of exegesis, however, very little weight as evidence can be attached to this. on the other hand, it is clear that a considerable time must have elapsed before these two passages from the psalms could have become applied to the death of judas.( ) the account which is given of the fate of judas is contradictory to that given in the first synoptic and cannot be reconciled with it, but follows a different tradition.( ) according to the first synoptic (xxvii. ff.), judas brings back the thirty pieces of silver, casts them down in the temple, and then goes and hangs himself. the chief priests take the money and buy with it the potter's field, which is not said to have had any other connection with judas, as a place for the burial of strangers. in the acts, judas himself buys a field as a private possession, and instead { } of committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from a fall in this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judgment upon him for his crime. the apologetic attempts to reconcile these two narratives,( ) are truly lamentable. beyond calling attention to this amongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we have not further to do with the point at present we have already devoted too much space to peter's first address, and we now pass on to more important topics. chapter iv. primitive christianity. we now enter upon a portion of our examination of the acts which is so full of interest in itself that peculiar care will be requisite to restrain ourselves within necessary limits. hitherto our attention has been mainly confined to the internal phenomena presented by the document before us, with comparatively little aid from external testimony, and although the results of such criticism have been of no equivocal character, the historical veracity of the acts has not yet been tested by direct comparison with other sources of information. we now propose to examine, as briefly as may be, some of the historical statements in themselves, and by the light of information derived from contemporary witnesses of unimpeachable authority, and to confront them with well-established facts in the annals of the first two centuries. this leads us to the borders not only of one of the greatest controversies which has for half a century occupied theological criticism, but also of still more important questions regarding the original character and systematic development of christianity itself. the latter we must here resolutely pass almost unnoticed, and into the former we shall only enter so far as is absolutely necessary to the special object of our inquiry. the document before us professes to give a narrative of the progress of the { } primitive church from its first formation in the midst of mosaism, with strong judaistic rules and prejudices, up to that liberal universalism which freely admitted the christian gentile, upon equal terms, into communion with the christian jew. the question with which we are concerned is strictly this: is the account in the acts of the apostles of the successive steps by which christianity emerged from judaism, and, shaking off the restrictions and obligations of the mosaic law, admitted the gentiles to a full participation of its privileges historically true? is the representation which is made of the conduct and teaching of the older apostles on the one hand, and of paul on the other, and of their mutual relations an accurate one? can the acts of the apostles, in short, be considered a sober and veracious history of so important and interesting an epoch of the christian church? this has been vehemently disputed or denied, and the discussion, extending on every side into important collateral issues, forms in itself a literature of voluminous extent and profound interest. our path now lies through this debatable land; but although the controversy as to the connection of paul with the development of christianity and his relation to the apostles of the circumcision cannot be altogether avoided, it only partially concerns us. we are freed from the necessity of advancing any particular theory, and have here no further interest in it than to inquire whether the narrative of the acts is historical or not. if, therefore, avoiding many important but unnecessary questions, and restricting ourselves to a straight course across the great controversy, we seem to deal insufficiently with the general subject, it must be remembered that the argument is merely incidental to our inquiry, and that we not only do not { } pretend to exhaust it, but distinctly endeavour to reduce our share in it to the smallest limits compatible with our immediate object. according to the narrative of the acts of the apostles, the apostolic age presents a most edifying example of concord and moderation. the emancipation of the church from mosaic restrictions was effected without strife or heart-burning, and the freedom of the gospel, if not attained without hesitation, was finally proclaimed with singular largeness of mind and philosophic liberality. the teaching of paul differed in nothing from that of the elder apostles. the christian universalism, which so many suppose to have specially characterized the great apostle of the gentiles, was not only shared, but even anticipated, by the elder apostles. so far from opposing the free admission of the gentiles to the christian community, peter declares himself to have been chosen of god that by his voice they should hear the gospel,( ) proclaims that there is no distinction between jew and gentile,( ) and advocates the abrogation, in their case at least, of the mosaic law.( ) james, whatever his private predilections may be, exhibits almost equal forbearance and desire of conciliation. in fact, whatever anomalies and contradictions may be discoverable, upon close examination, beneath this smooth and brilliant surface, the picture superficially presented is one of singular harmony and peace. on the other hand, instead of that sensitive independence and self-reliance of character which has been ascribed to the apostle paul, we find him represented in the acts as submissive to the authority of the "pillars" of the church, ready to conform to their { } counsels and bow to their decrees, and as seizing every opportunity of visiting jerusalem, and coming in contact with that stronghold of judaism. instead of the apostle of the gentiles, preaching the abrogation of the law, and more than suspected of leading the jews to apostatize from moses,( ) we find a man even scrupulous in his observance of mosaic customs, taking vows upon him, circumcising timothy with his own hand, and declaring at the close of his career, when a prisoner at rome, that he "did nothing against the people or the customs of the fathers."( ) there is no trace of angry controversy, of jealous susceptibility, of dogmatic difference in the circle of the apostles. the intercourse of paul with the leaders of the judaistic party is of the most unbroken pleasantness and amity. of opposition to his ministry, or doubt of his apostleship, whether on the part of the three, or of those who identified themselves with their teaching, we have no hint. we must endeavour to ascertain whether this is a true representation of the early development of the church, and of the momentous history of the apostolic age. in the epistles of paul we have, at least to some extent, the means of testing the accuracy of the statements of the acts with regard to him and the early history of the church. the epistles to the galatians, to the corinthians ( ), and to the romans are generally admitted to be genuine,( ) and can be freely used for this purpose. to these we shall limit our attention, excluding other epistles, whose authenticity is either questioned or denied, but in doing so no material capable of really affecting the result is set aside. for the same reason, we { } must reject any evidence to be derived from the so-called epistles of peter and james, at least so far as they are supposed to represent the opinions of peter and james, but here again it will be found that they do not materially affect the points immediately before us. the veracity of the acts of the apostles being the very point which is in question, it is unnecessary to say that we have to subject the narrative to examination, and by no means to assume the correctness of any statements we find in it. at the same time it must be our endeavour to collect from this document such indications--and they will frequently be valuable--of the true history of the occurrences related, as may be presented between the lines of the text. in the absence of fuller information, it must not be forgotten that human nature in the first century of our era was very much what it is in the nineteenth, and certain facts being clearly established, it will not be difficult to infer many details which cannot now be positively demonstrated. the epistle to the galatians, however, will be our most invaluable guide. dealing, as it does, with some of the principal episodes of the acts, we are enabled by the words of the apostle paul himself, which have all the accent of truth and vehement earnestness, to control the narrative of the unknown writer of that work. and where this source fails, we have the unsuspected testimony of his other epistles, and of later ecclesiastical history to assist our inquiry. the problem then which we have to consider is the manner in which the primitive church emerged from its earliest form, as a jewish institution with mosaic restrictions and israelitish exclusiveness, and finally opened wide its doors to the uncircumcised gentile, and assumed { } the character of a universal religion. in order to understand the nature of the case, and be able to estimate aright the solution which is presented by the narrative in the acts of the apostles, it is necessary that we should obtain a clear view of the actual characteristics of christianity at the period when that history begins. we must endeavour to understand precisely what view the apostles had formed of their position in regard to judaism, and of the duty which devolved upon them of propagating the gospel. it is obvious that we cannot rightly appreciate the amount of persuasion requisite to transform the primitive church from jewish exclusive-ness to christian universality, without ascertaining the probable amount of long rooted conviction and religious prejudice or principle which had to be overcome before that great change could be effected. we shall not here enter upon any argument as to the precise views which the founder of christianity may have held as to his own person and work, nor shall we attempt to sift the traditions of his life and teaching which have been handed down to us, and to separate the genuine spiritual nucleus from the grosser matter by which it has been enveloped and obscured. we have much more to do with the view which others took of the matter, and, looking at the gospels as representations of that which was accepted as the orthodox view regarding the teaching of jesus, they are almost as useful for our present purpose as if they had been more spiritual and less popular expositions of his views. what the master was understood to teach is more important for the history of the first century than what he actually taught without being understood. nothing is more certain than the fact that christianity, originally, was { } developed out of judaism, and that its advent was historically prepared by the course of the mosaic system, to which it was so closely related.( ) in its first stages during the apostolic age, it had no higher ambition than to be, and to be considered, the continuation and the fulfilment of judaism, its final and triumphant phase. the substantial identity of primitive christianity with true judaism was at first never called in question; it was considered a mere internal movement of judaism, its development and completion, but by no means its mutilation. the idea of christianity as a new religion never entered the minds of the twelve or of the first believers, nor, as we shall presently see, was it so regarded by the jews themselves. it was in fact, originally, nothing more than a sect of judaism, holding a particular view of one point in the creed and, for a very long period, it was considered so by others, and was in no way distinguished from the rest of mosaism.( ) even in the acts there are traces of this, paul being called "a ringleader of the sect [------] of the nazarenes,"( ) and the jews of rome being represented as referring to christianity by this term.( ) paul before the council not { } only does not scruple to call himself "a pharisee, the son of a pharisee," but the pharisees take part with him against the more unorthodox and hated sect of the sadducees.( ) for eighteen centuries disputes have fiercely raged over the creed of christendom, and the ingenuity of countless divines has been exhausted in deducing mystic dogmas from the primitive teaching, but if there be one thing more remarkable than another in that teaching, according to the synoptics, it is its perfect simplicity. jesus did not appear with a ready-made theology, and imposed no elaborate system of doctrine upon his disciples. throughout the prophetic period of mosaism, one hope had sustained the people of israel in all their sufferings and reverses: that the fortunes of the nation should finally be retrieved by a scion of the race of david, under whose rule it should be restored to a future of unexampled splendour and prosperity. the expectation of the messiah, under frequently modified aspects, had formed a living part in the national faith of israel. primitive christianity, sharing but recasting this ancient hope, was only distinguished from judaism, with whose worship it continued in all points united, by a single doctrine, which was in itself merely a modification of the national idea: the belief that jesus of nazareth was actually the christ, the promised messiah. this was substantially the whole of its creed.( ) { } the synoptic gospels, and more especially the first,( ) are clearly a history of jesus as the messiah of the house of david, so long announced and expected, and whose life and even his death and resurrection are shown to be the fulfilment of a series of old testament prophecies.( ) when his birth is announced to mary, he is described as the great one, who is to sit on the throne of david his father, and reign over the house of jacob for ever,( ) and the good tidings of great joy to all the people [------], that the messiah is born that day in the city of david, are proclaimed by the angel to the shepherds of the plain.( ) synieon takes the child in his arms and blesses god that the words of the holy spirit are accomplished, that he should not die before he had seen the lord's anointed, the messiah, the consolation of israel.( ) the magi come to his cradle in bethlehem, the birthplace of the messiah indicated by the prophet,( ) to do homage to him who is born king of the jews,( ) and there herod seeks to destroy him,( ) fulfilling another { } prophecy.( ) his flight into egypt and return to nazareth are equally in fulfilment of prophecies.( ) john the baptist, whose own birth as the forerunner of the messiah had been foretold,( ) goes before him preparing the way of the lord, and announcing that the messianic kingdom is at hand. according to the fourth gospel, some of the twelve had been disciples of the baptist, and follow jesus on their master's assurance that he is the messiah. one of these, andrew, induces his brother simon peter also to go after him by the announcement:--"we have found the messiah, which is, being interpreted, the christ" (i. ff. ). and philip tells nathaniel:--"we have found him of whom moses in the law and the prophets did write: jesus, the son of joseph, who is from nazareth" (i. ). when he has commenced his own public ministry, jesus is represented as asking his disciples:--"who do men say that i am?" and setting aside the popular conjectures that he is john the baptist, elijah, jeremiah, or one of the prophets, by the still more direct question:--"and whom do ye say that i am? simon peter answered and said:--thou art the christ, the son of the living god." and in consequence of this recognition of his messiahship, jesus rejoins:--"and i say unto thee that thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church."( ) { } it is quite apart from our present object to point out the singular feats of exegesis and perversions of historical s nse by which passages of the old testament are forced to show that every event in the history, and even the startling novelty of a suffering and crucified messiah, which to jews was a stumbling-block and to gentiles folly,( ) had been foretold by the prophets. from first to last the gospels strive to prove that jesus was the messiah, and connect him indissolubly with the old testament. the messianic key-note, which is struck at the outset, regulates the strain to the close. the disciples on the way to emmaus, appalled by the ignominious death of their master, sadly confide to the stranger their vanished hope that jesus of nazareth, whom they now merely call "a prophet mighty in word and deed before god and all the people," was the christ "who was about to redeem israel," and jesus himself replies:--"o foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spake! was it not needful that the christ (messiah) should suffer these things and enter into his glory? and, beginning at moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."( ) then, again, when he appears to the eleven, immediately after, at jerusalem, he says:--"'these are the words that i spake unto you while i was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of moses and the prophets and the psalms concerning me.' then opened he their understanding that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them:--'thus it is written, that the christ should suffer and rise from the dead the third day.'"( ) { } the crucifixion and death of jesus introduced the first elements of rupture with judaism, to which they formed the great stumbling-block.( ) the conception of a suffering and despised messiah could naturally never have occurred to a jewish mind.( ) the first effort of christianity, therefore, was to repair the apparent breach by proving that the suffering messiah had actually been foretold by the prophets; and to re-establish the messianic character of jesus, by the evidence of his resurrection.( ) but, above all, the momentary deviation from orthodox jewish ideas regarding the messiah was retraced by the representation of a speedy second advent, in glory, of the once rejected messiah to restore the kingdom of israel, by which the ancient hopes of the people became reconciled with the new expectation of christians. even before the ascension, the disciples are represented in the acts as asking the risen jesus:--"lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to israel?"( ) there can be no doubt of the reality and { } universality of the belief, in the apostolic church, in the immediate return of the glorified messiah and speedy "end of all things."( ) the substance of the preaching of the apostles in acts, simply is that jesus is the christ,( ) the expected messiah.( ) their chief aim is to prove that his sufferings and death had been foretold by the prophets,( ) and that his resurrection establishes his claim to the title.( ) the simplicity of the creed is illustrated by the rapidity with which converts are made. after a few words, on one occasion, three thousand( ) and, on another, five thousand( ) are at once converted. no lengthened instruction or preparation was requisite for admission into the church.( ) as soon as a jew acknowledged jesus to be the messiah he thereby became a christian.( ) as soon as the { } three thousand converts at pentecost made this confession of faith they were baptized.( ) the ethiopian is converted whilst passing in his chariot, and is immediately baptized,( ) as are likewise cornelius and his household after a short address from peter.( ) the new faith involved no abandonment of the old. on the contrary, the advent of the messiah was so essential a part of judaic belief, and the messianic claim of jesus was so completely based by the apostles on the fulfilment of prophecy--"showing by the scriptures that jesus is the christ,"--that recognition of the fact rather constituted firmer adhesion to mosaism, and deeper faith in the inviolable truth of the covenant with israel. if there had been no mosaism, so to say, there could have been no messiah. so far from being opposed either to the form or spirit of the religion of israel, the proclamation of the messiah was its necessary complement, and could only be intelligible by confirmation of its truth and maintenance of its validity. christianity--belief in the messiah--in its earlier phases, drew its whole nourishment from roots that sank deeply into mosaism. it was indeed nothing more than mosaism in a developed form. the only difference between the jew and the christian was that the latter believed the messiah to have already appeared in jesus, whilst the former still expected him in the future;( ) though even this difference { } was singularly diminished, in appearance at least, by the christian expectation of the second advent. it is exceedingly important to ascertain, under these circumstances, what was the impression of the apostles as to the relation of believers to judaism and to mosaic observances, although it must be clear to any one who impartially considers the origin and historical antecedents of the christian faith, that very little doubt can have existed in their minds on the subject. the teaching of jesus, as recorded in the synoptic gospels, is by no means of a doubtful character, more especially when the sanctity of the mosaic system in the eyes of a jew is borne in mind. it must be apparent that, in order to remove the obligation of a law and form of worship believed to have been, in the most direct sense, instituted by god himself, the most clear, strong, and reiterated order would have been requisite. no one can reasonably maintain that a few spiritual expressions directed against the bare letter and abuse of the law, which were scarcely understood by the hearers, could have been intended to abolish a system so firmly planted, or to overthrow jewish institutions of such antiquity and national importance, much less that they could be taken in this sense by the disciples. a few passages in the gospels, therefore, which may bear the interpretation of having foreseen the eventual supersession of mosaism by his own more spiritual principles, must not be strained to support the idea that jesus taught disregard of the law. his very distinct and positive lessons, conveyed both by precept and practice, show, on the contrary, that not only he did not intend to attack pure mosaism, but that he was understood both directly and by inference to recognise and confirm it. in the sermon on the mount, jesus { } states to the disciples in the most positive manner:--"think not that i came to destroy the law or the prophets; i came not to destroy but to fulfil. for verily i say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be accomplished."( ) whether the last phrase be interpreted: till all the law be accomplished, or till all things appointed to occur be accomplished, the effect is the same. one clear explicit declaration like this, under the circumstances, would outweigh a host of doubtful expressions. not only does jesus in this passage directly repudiate any idea of attacking the law and the prophets, but, in representing his mission as their fulfilment, he affirms them, and associates his own work in the closest way with theirs. if there were any uncertainty, however, as to the meaning of his words it would be removed by the continuation:--"whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these commandments, even the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."( ) it would be difficult for teaching to be more decisive in favour of the maintenance of the law, and this instruction, according to the first synoptic, was specially directed to the disciples.( ) when jesus goes on to show that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and pharisees, and to add to the letter of the law, as interpreted by those of old, his own profound interpretation of its { } spirit, he only intensifies, without limiting, the operation of the law; he merely spiritualises it. he does no more than this in his lessons regarding the observance of the sabbath. he did not in point of fact attack the genuine mosaic institution of the day of rest at all, but merely the intolerable literalism by which its observance had been made a burden instead of "a delight." he justified his variation from the traditional teaching and practice of his time, however, by appeals to scriptural precedent.( ) as a recent writer has said: "....the observance of the sabbath, which had been intended to secure for weary men a rest full of love and peace and mercy, had become a mere national fetish--a barren custom fenced in with the most frivolous and senseless restrictions."( ) jesus restored its original significance. in restricting some of the permissive clauses of the law, on the other hand, he acted precisely in the same spirit. he dealt with the law not with the temper of a revolutionist, but of a reformer, and his reforms, so far from affecting its permanence, are a virtual confirmation of the rest of the code.( ) ritschl, whose views on this point will have some weight with apologists, combats the idea that jesus merely confirmed the mosaic moral law, and abolished the ceremonial law. referring to one particular point of importance, he says:--"he certainly contests the duty of the sabbath rest, the value of purifications and sacrifices, and the validity of divorce; on the other hand, he leaves unattacked the value of circumcision, whose regulation is generally reckoned as part of the { } ceremonial law; and nothing justifies the conclusion that jesus estimated it in the same way as justin martyr, and the other gentile christian church teachers, who place it on the same line as the ceremonies. the only passage in which jesus touches upon circumcision (john vii. ) rather proves that, as an institution of the patriarchs, he attributes to it peculiar sanctity. moreover, when jesus, with unmistakable intention, confines his own personal ministry to the israelitish people (mk. vii. , mt. x. , ), he thereby recognises their prior right of participation in the kingdom of god, and also, indirectly, circumcision as the sign of the preference of this people. the distinction of circumcision from ceremonies, besides, is perfectly intelligible from the old testament. through circumcision, to wit, is the israelite, sprung from the people of the covenant, indicated as sanctified by god; through purification, sacrifice, sabbath-rest must he continually sanctify himself for god. so long, therefore, as the conception of the people of the covenant is maintained, circumcision cannot be abandoned, whilst even the prophets have pointed to the merely relative importance of the mosaic worship."( ) jesus everywhere in the gospels recognises the divine origin of the law,( ) and he quotes the predictions of the prophets as absolute evidence of his own pretensions. to those who ask him the way to eternal life he indicates its commandments,( ) and he even enjoins the observance of its ceremonial rites.( ) jesus did not abrogate the { } mosaic law; but, on the contrary, by his example as well as his precepts, he practically confirmed it.( ) according to the statements of the gospels, jesus himself observed the prescriptions of the mosaic law.( ) from his birth he had been brought up in its worship.( ) he was circumcised on the eighth day.( ) "and when the days of their purification were accomplished, according to the law of moses, they brought him up to jerusalem to present him to the lord, even as it is written in the law of the lord: every male, &c, &c, and to give a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the lord," &c, &c.( ) every year his parents went to jerusalem at the feast of the passover,( ) and this practice he continued till the close of his life. "as his custom was, he went into the synagogue (at nazareth) and stood up to read."( ) according to the fourth gospel, jesus goes up to jerusalem for the various festivals of the jews,( ) and the feast of the passover, according to the synoptics, was the last memorable supper eaten { } with his disciples,( ) the third synoptic representing him as saying: "with desire i desired to eat this passover with you before i suffer; for i say unto you that i shall not any more eat it until it be fulfilled hi the kingdom of god."( ) however exceptional the character of jesus, and however elevated his views, it is undeniable that he lived and died a jew, conforming to the ordinances of the mosaic law in all essential points, and not holding himself aloof from the worship of the temple which he purified. the influence which his adherence to the forms of judaism must have exerted over his followers( ) can scarcely be exaggerated, and the fact must ever be carefully borne in mind in estimating the conduct of the apostles and of the primitive christian community after his death. as befitted the character of the jewish messiah, the sphere of the ministry of jesus and the arrangements for the proclamation of the gospel were strictly and even intensely, judaic. jesus attached to his person twelve disciples, a number clearly typical of the twelve tribes of the people of israel;( ) and this reference is distinctly adopted when jesus is represented, in the synoptics, as promising that, in the messianic kingdom, "when the son { } of man shall sit on the throne of his glory," the twelve also "shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of israel;"( ) a promise which, according to the third synoptist, is actually made during the last supper.( ) in the apocalypse, which, "of all the writings of the new testament is most thoroughly jewish in its language and imagery,"( ) the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb are written upon the twelve foundations of the wall of the heavenly jerusalem, upon the twelve gates of which, through which alone access to the city can be obtained, are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of israel.( ) jesus himself limited his teaching to the jews, and was strictly "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of god, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."( ) to the prayer of the canaanitish woman: "have mercy on me, o lord, son of david," unlike his gracious demeanour to her of the bloody issue,( ) jesus, at first, it is said, "answered her not a word;" and even when besought by the disciples--not to heal her daughter, but--to "send her away," he makes the emphatic declaration: "i was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of israel."( ) to her continued appeals he lays { } down the principle: "it is not lawful to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs." if after these exclusive sentences the boon is finally granted, it is as of the crumbs( ) which fall from the master's table.( ) the modified expression( ) in the second gospel: "let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs;" does not affect the case, for it equally represents exclusion from the privileges of israel, and the messianic idea fully contemplated a certain grace to the heathen when the children were filled. the expression regarding casting, the children's bread "to the dogs" is clearly in reference to the gentiles, who were so called by the jews.( ) a similar, though still stronger use of such expressions, might be pointed out in the sermon on the mount in the first { } gospel (vii. ): "give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine." it is certain that the jews were in the habit of speaking of the heathen both as dogs and swine--unclean animals,--and hilgenfeld,( ) and some other critics, see in this verse a reference to the gentiles. we do not, however, press this application which is, and may be, disputed, but merely mention it and pass on. there can be no doubt, however, of the exclusive references to the gentiles in the same sermon, and other passages, where the disciples are enjoined to practise a higher righteousness than the gentiles. "do not even the publicans... do not even the gentiles or sinners the same things."( ) "take no thought, &c, for after all these things do the gentiles seek; but seek ye, &c, &c."( ) the contrast is precisely that put with some irony by paul, making use of the common jewish expression "sinner" as almost equivalent for "gentile;"( ) in another place the first synoptic represents jesus as teaching his disciples how to deal with a brother who sins against them, and as the final resource, when every effort at reconciliation and justice has failed, he says: "let him be unto thee as the gentile [------] and the publican." (mt. xviii. .) he could not express in a stronger way to a jewish mind the idea of social and religious excommunication. the instructions which jesus gives in sending out the twelve, however, express the exclusiveness of the { } messianic mission, in the first instance at least, to the jews, in a very marked manner. jesus commands his disciples: "go not into a way of the gentiles [------] and into a city of the samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of israel. and as ye go, preach, saying: the kingdom of heaven is at hand."( ) as if more emphatically to mark the limitation of the mission, the assurance is seriously added: "for verily i say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of israel, till the son of man come."( ) it will be observed that jesus here charges the twelve to go rather "to the lost sheep of the house of israel" in the same words that he employs to the canaanitish woman to describe the exclusive destination of his own ministry.( ) in coupling the samaritans with the gentiles there is merely an expression of the intense antipathy of the jews against them, as a mixed and, we may say, renegade race, excluded from the jewish worship although circumcised, intercourse with whom is to this day almost regarded as pollution.( ) the third gospel, which omits the restrictive instructions of jesus to the twelve given by the first synoptist, introduces another episode of the same description: the appointment and mission of seventy disciples,( ) to which we must very briefly refer. no mention whatever is made of this incident in the other gospels, and these disciples are not referred to in any other part of the new testament.( ) even eusebius remarks that no { } catalogue of them is anywhere given,( ) and, after naming a few persons, who were said by tradition to have been of their number, he points out that more than seventy disciples appear, for instance, according to the testimony of paul.( ) it will be observed that the instructions, at least in considerable part, supposed to be given to the seventy in the third. synoptic are, in the first, the very instructions given to the twelve. there has been much discussion regarding the whole episode, which need not here be minutely referred to. for various reasons the majority of critics impugn its historical character.( ) a large number of these, as well as other writers, consider that the narrative of this appointment of seventy disciples, the number of the nations of the earth according to jewish ideas, was introduced in pauline universalistic interest,( ) or, at least, that the number is { } typical of gentile conversion, in contrast with that of the twelve who represent the more strictly judaic limitation of the messianic mission; and they seem to hold that the preaching of the seventy is represented as not confined to judaea, but as extending to samaria, and that it thus denoted the destination of the gospel also to the gentiles. on the other hand, other critics, many, though by no means all, of whom do not question the authenticity of the passage, are disposed to deny the pauline tendency, and any special connection with a mission to the gentiles, and rather to see in the number seventy a reference to well-known judaistic institutions.( ) it is true that the number of the nations was set down at seventy by jewish tradition,( ) but, on the other hand, it was the number of the elders chosen by moses from amongst the children of israel by god's command to help him, and to whom god gave of his spirit( )s and also of the national { } sanhedrin, which, according to the mischna,( ) still represented the mosaic council. this view receives confirmation from the clementine recognitions in the following passage: "he therefore chose us twelve who first believed in him, whom he named apostles; afterwards seventy-two other disciples of most approved goodness, that even in this way recognising the similitude of moses the multitude might believe that this is the prophet to come whom moses foretold."( ) the passage here referred to is twice quoted in the acts: "moses indeed said: a prophet will the lord our god raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me," &c.( ) on examination, we do not find that there is any ground for the assertion that the seventy disciples were sent to the samaritans or gentiles, or were in any way connected with universalistic ideas. jesus had "stedfastly set his face to go to jerusalem," and sent messengers before him who "went and entered into a village of the samaritans to make ready for him," but they repulsed him, "because his face was as though he would go to jerusalem."( ) there is a decided break, however, before the appointment of the seventy. "after these things [------] the lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was about to come."( ) there is not a single word in the instructions ( } given to them which justifies the conclusion that they were sent to samaria, and only the inference from the number seventy, taken as typical of the nations, suggests it. that inference is not sufficiently attested, and the slightness of the use made of the seventy disciples in the third gospel--this occasion being the only one on which they are mentioned, and no specific intimation of any mission to all people being here given--does not favour the theory of pauline tendency. so far as we are concerned, however, the point is unimportant. those who assert the universalistic character of the episode generally deny its authenticity; most of those who accept it as historical deny its universalism. the order to go and teach all nations, however, by no means carries us beyond strictly messianic limits. whilst the jews expected the messiah to restore the people of israel to their own holy land and crown them with unexampled prosperity and peace, revenging their past sorrows upon their enemies, and granting them supremacy over all the earth, they likewise held that one of the messianic glories was to be the conversion of the gentiles to the worship of jahveh. this is the burden of the prophets, and it requires no proof. the jews, as the people with whom god had entered into covenant, were first to be received into the kingdom. "let the children first be filled,"( ) and then the heathen might partake of the bread. regarding the ultimate conversion of the gentiles, therefore, there was no doubt; the only questions were as to the time and the conditions of admission into the national fellowship. as to the time, there never had been any expectation that the heathen could be turned to jahveh in numbers before the appearance of the { } messiah, but converts to judaism had been made in all ages, and after the dispersion, especially, the influence of the jews upon the professors of the effete and expiring religions of rome, of greece, and of egypt was very great, and numerous proselytes adopted the faith of israel,( ) and were eagerly sought for( ) in spite of the abusive terms in which the talmudists spoke of them.( ) the conditions on the other hand were perfectly definite. the case of converts had been early foreseen and provided for in the mosaic code. without referring to minor points, we may at once say that circumcision was indispensable to admission into the number of the children of israel.( ) participation in the privileges of the covenant could only be secured by accepting the mark of that covenant. very many, however, had adopted judaism to a great extent, who were not willing to undergo the rite requisite to full admission into the nation, and a certain modification had gradually been introduced by which, without it, strangers might be admitted into partial communion with israel. there were, therefore, two classes of proselytes,( ) the first called proselytes of the covenant or of righteousness, who were circumcised, obeyed the whole mosaic law, and { } were fully incorporated with israel, and the other called proselytes of the gate,( ) or worshippers of jahveh, who in the new testament are commonly called [------]. these had not undergone the rite of circumcision, and therefore were not participators in the covenant, but merely worshipped the god of israel,( ) and were only compelled to observe the seven noachian prescriptions. these proselytes of the gate, however, were little more than on sufferance. they were excluded from the temple, and even the acts of the apostles represent it to be pollution for a jew to have intercourse with them: it requires direct divine intervention to induce peter to go to cornelius, and to excuse his doing so in the eyes of the primitive church.( ) nothing short of circumcision and full observance of the mosaic law could secure the privileges of the covenant with israel to a stranger, and in illustration of this we may again point to the acts, where certain who came from judaea, members of the primitive church, teach the christians of antioch: "except ye have been circumcised after the custom of moses ye cannot be saved."( ) we need not discuss the chronology of this class. it is scarcely necessary to speak of the well-known case of lzates, king of adiabene, related by josephus. the jewish merchant ananias, who teaches him to worship god according to the religion of the jews, is willing, evidently from the special emergency of the case and the danger of forcing izates fully to embrace judaism in the face of his people, to let him remain a mere jahveh worshipper, only partially conforming to the law, and remaining uncircumcised'; but another jew from galilee, eleazer, versed in jewish learning, points out to him that, in neglecting circumcision, he breaks the principal point of the law. izates then has himself circumcised. josephus, antiq. xx. , § f. acts x. ff, xi. ft. dr. lightfoot says: "the apostles of the circumcision, even st. peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose of god. with their fellow-countrymen they still held it unlawful for a jew to keep company with an alien' (acts x. )." galatians, p. . { } this will be more fully shown as we proceed. the conversion of the gentiles was not, therefore, in the least degree an idea foreign to judaism, but, on the contrary, formed an intimate part of the messianic expectation of the later prophets. the conditions of admission to the privileges and promises of the covenant, however, were full acceptance of the mosaic law, and submission to the initiatory rite.( ) that small and comparatively insignificant people, with an arrogance that would have been ridiculous if, in the influence which they have actually exerted over the world, it had not been almost sublime, not only supposed themselves the sole and privileged recipients of the oracles of god, as his chosen and peculiar people, but they contemplated nothing short of universal submission to the mosaic code, and the supremacy of israel over all the earth. we are now better able to estimate the position of the twelve when the death of their master threw them on their own resources, and left them to propagate his gospel as they themselves understood it. born a jew of the race of david, accepting during his life the character of the promised messiah, and dying with the mocking title "king of the jews" written upon his cross, jesus had left his disciples in close communion with the mosaism which he had spiritualized and ennobled, but had not abolished. he himself had taught them that "it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness," and, from his youth upwards, had set them the example of { } enlightened observance of the mosaic law. his precept had not belied his example, and whilst in strong terms we find him inculcating the permanence of the law, it is certain that he left no order to disregard it. he confined his own preaching to the jews; the first ministers of the messiah represented the twelve tribes of the people of israel;.and the first christians were of that nation, with no distinctive worship, but practising as before the whole mosaic ritual. what neander savs of "many," may, we think, be referred to all: "that jesus faithfully observed the form of the jewish law served to them as evidence that this form should ever preserve its value."( ) as a fact, the apostles and the early christians continued as before assiduously to practise all the observances of the mosaic law, to frequent the temple( ) and adhere to the usual strict forms of judaism.( ) in addition to the influence of the example of jesus and the powerful effect of national habit, there were many strong reasons which obviously must to jews have rendered abandonment of the law as difficult as submission to its full requirements must have been to gentiles. holding as they did the divine origin of the old testament, in which the observance of the law was inculcated on almost every page, { } it would have been impossible, without counter-teaching of the most peremptory and convincing character, to have shaken its supremacy; but beyond this, in that theocratic community mosaism was not only the condition of the covenant, and the key of the temple, but it was also the diploma of citizenship, and the bond of social and political life. to abandon the observance of the law was not only to resign the privilege and the distinctive characteristic of israel, to relinquish the faith of the patriarchs who were the glory of the nation, and to forsake a divinely appointed form of worship, without any recognized or even indicated substitute, but it severed the only link between the individual and the people of israel, and left him in despised isolation, an outcast from the community. they had no idea, however, that any such sacrifice was required of them. they were simply jews believing in the jewish messiah, and they held that all things else were to proceed as before, until the glorious second coining of the christ.( ) the apostles and primitive christians continued to hold the national belief that the way to christianity lay through judaism, and that the observance of the law was obligatory and circumcision necessary to complete communion.( ) paul describes with unappeased { } irritation the efforts made by the community of jerusalem, whose "pillars" were peter, james, and john, to force titus, a gentile christian, to be circumcised,( ) and even the acts represent james and all the elders of the church of jerusalem as requesting paul, long after, to take part with four jewish christians, who had a vow and were about to purify themselves and shave their heads and, after the accomplishment of the days of purification, make the usual offering in the temple, in order to convince the "many thousands there of those who have believed and are all zealous for the law," that it is untrue that he teaches: "all the jews who are among the gentiles apostacy [------] from moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs," and to show, on the contrary, that he himself walks orderly and keeps the law.( ) as true israelites, with opinions fundamentally unchanged by belief that jesus was the messiah, they held that the gospel was specially intended for the people of the covenant, and they confined their teaching to the jews.( ) a gentile whilst still uncircumcised, even although converted, could not, they thought, be received on an gal ii. ff. as we shall more fully discuss this episode hereafter, it is not necessary to do so here. acts xxi. -- ; cf. xv. i. paul is also represented as saying to the jews of rome that he has done nothing" against the customs of their fathers." dr. lightfoot says: "meanwhile at jerusalem some years past away before the barrier of judaism was assailed. the apostles still observed the mosaic ritual; they still confined their preaching to jews by birth, or jews by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant," &c. paul's ep. to gal. p. . paley says: "it was not yet known to the apostles, that they were at liberty to propose the religion to mankind at large. that 'mystery,' as st. paul calls it (eph. iii. - ), and as it then was, was revealed to peter by an especial miracle." a view of the evidence, &c, ed. potts, , p. . { } equality with the jew, but defiled him by contact.( ) the attitude of the christian jew to the merely christian gentile, who had not entered the community by the portal of judaism, was, as before, simply that of the jew to the proselyte of the gate. the apostles could not upon any other terms have then even contemplated the conversion of the gentiles. jesus had limited his own teaching to the jews, and, according to the first gospel, had positively prohibited, at one time at least, their going to the gentiles, or even to the samaritans, and if there had been an order given to preach to all nations it certainly was not accompanied by any removal of the conditions specified in the law.( ) it has been remarked that neither party, in the great discussion in the church regarding the terms upon which gentiles might be admitted to the privileges of christianity, ever appealed in support of their views to specific instructions of jesus on the subject.( ) the reason is intelligible enough. the petrine party, supported as they were by the whole weight of the law and of holy scripture, as well as by the example and tacit approval of the master, could not have felt even that degree of doubt which precedes an appeal to authority. dr. lightfoot says: "the master himself had left no express instructions. he had charged them, it is true, to preach the gospel to all nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what changes a national church must expand into an universal church, they had not been told. he had indeed asserted the sovereignty of the spirit over the letter; he had enunciated the great principle--as wide in its application as the law itself--that' man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man.' he had pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the gospel. so fer he had discredited the law, but he had not deposed it or abolished it. it was left to the apostles themselves under the guidance of the spirit, moulded by circumstances and moulding them in turn, to work out the great change." st. paul's ep. to gal. . { } the party of paul, on the other hand, had nothing in their favour to which a specific appeal could have been made; but in his constant protest that he had not received his doctrine from man, but had been taught it by direct revelation, the apostle of the gentiles, who was the first to proclaim a substantial difference between christianity and judaism,( ) in reality endeavoured to set aside the authority of the judaistic party by an appeal from the earthly to the spiritualized messiah. even after the visit of paul to jerusalem about the year , the elder apostles still retained the views which we have shown to have been inevitable under the circumstances, and, as we learn from paul himself, they still continued mere "apostles of the circumcision," limiting their mission to the jews.( ) the apostles and the primitive christians, therefore, after the death of their master, whom they believed to be the messiah of the jews, having received his last instructions, and formed their final impressions of his views, remained jews, believing in the continued obligation to observe the law and, consequently, holding the initiatory rite essential to participation in the privileges of the covenant. they held this not only as jews believing in the divine origin of the old testament and of the law, but as christians confirmed by the example and the teaching of their christ, whose very coming was a substantial ratification of the ancient faith of israel. in this position they stood when the { } gospel, without their intervention, and mainly by the exertions of the apostle paul, began to spread amongst the gentiles, and the terms of their admission came into question. it is impossible to deny that the total removal of conditions, advocated by the apostle paul with all the vehemence and warmth of his energetic character, and involving nothing short of the abrogation of the law and surrender of all the privileges of israel, must have been shocking not only to the prejudices but also to the deepest religious convictions of men who, although christians, had not ceased to be jews, and, unlike the apostle of the gentiles, had been directly and daily in contact with jesus, without having been taught such revolutionary principles. from this point we have to proceed with our examination of the account in the acts of the relation of the elder apostles to paul, and the solution of the difficult problem before them. chapter v. stephen the martyr before the apostle of the gentiles himself comes on the scene, and is directly brought in contact with the twelve, we have to study the earlier incidents narrated in the acts, wherein, it is said, the emancipation of the church from jewish exclusiveness had already either commenced or been clearly anticipated. the first of these which demands our attention is the narrative of the martyrdom of stephen. this episode, although highly interesting and important in itself, might, we consider, have been left unnoticed in connection with the special point now engaging our attention, but such significance has been imparted to it by the views which critics have discovered in the speech of stephen, that we cannot pass it without attention. if this detention be, on the one hand, to be regretted, it will on the other be compensated by the light which may be thrown on the composition of the acts. we read(l) that in consequence of murmurs amongst the hellenists against the hebrews, that their widows were neglected in the daily distribution of alms, seven deacons were appointed specially to attend to such ministrations. amongst these, it is said, was stephen,( ) { } "a man full of faith and of the holy spirit." stephen, it appears, by no means limited his attention to the material interests of the members of the church, but being "full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs [------] amongst the people." "but there arose certain of those of the synagogue which is called (the synagogue) of the libertines( ) and cyrenians and alexandrians and of them of cilicia and of asia, disputing with stephen; and they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. then they suborned men who said: we have heard him speak blasphemous words against moses and god. and they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him, and seized him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses who said: this man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law; for we have heard him say, that jesus, this naza-rene, shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which moses delivered to us." the high-priest asks him: are these things so? and stephen delivers an address, which has since been the subject of much discussion amongst critics and divines. the contents of the speech taken by themselves do not present any difficulty, so far as the sense is concerned, but regarded as a reply to the accusations brought against him by the false witnesses, the defence of stephen has perhaps been interpreted in a greater variety of ways than any other part of the new testament. its shadowy outlines have been used as a setting for the pious thoughts of subsequent { } generations, and every imaginable intention has been ascribed to the proto-martyr, every possible or impossible reference detected in the phrases of his oration. this has mainly arisen from the imperfect nature of the account in the acts, and the absence of many important details which has left criticism to adopt that "divinatorisch-combinatorische" procedure which is so apt to evolve any favourite theory from the inner consciousness. the prevailing view, however, amongst the great majority of critics of all schools is, that stephen is represented in the acts as the forerunner of the apostle paul, anticipating his universalistic principles, and proclaiming with more or less of directness the abrogation of mosaic ordinances and the freedom of the christian church.( ) this view was certainly advanced by augustine, and lies at the base of his famous saying: "si sanctus stephanus sic non oras-set, ecclesia paulum non haberet,"( ) but it was first clearly enunciated by baur, who subjected the speech of stephen to detailed analysis,( ) and his interpretation has to a large extent been adopted even by apologists. it must be clearly understood that adherence to this reading of the aim and meaning of the speech, as it is given in the acts, by no means involves an admission of its authenticity, which, on the contrary, is impugned by baur himself, and by a large number of independent critics. we have the misfortune of differing most materially from the prevalent view regarding the contents of the speech, and we maintain that, as it stands in the acts, there is not a { } word in it which can be legitimately construed into an attack upon the mosaic law, or which anticipates the christian universalism of paul. space, however, forbids our entering here upon a discussion of this subject, but the course which we must adopt with regard to it renders it unnecessary to deal with the interpretation of the speech. we consider that there is no reason for believing that the discourse put into the mouth of stephen was ever actually delivered, but on the contraiy that there is every ground for holding that it is nothing more than a composition by the author of the acts. we shall endeavour clearly to state the reasons for this conclusion. with the exception of the narrative in the acts, there is no evidence whatever that such a person as stephen ever existed. the statements of the apostle paul leave no doubt that persecution against the christians of jerusalem must have broken out previous to his conversion, but no details are given, and it can scarcely be considered otherwise than extraordinary, that paul should not in any of his own writings have referred to the proto-martyr of the christian church, if the account which is given of him be historical. it may be argued that his own share in the martyrdom of stephen made the episode an unpleasant memory, which the apostle would not readily recall. considering the generosity of paul's character on the one hand, however, and the important position assigned to stephen on the other, this cannot be admitted as an explanation, and it is perfectly unaccountable that, if stephen really be a historical personage, no mention of him occurs elsewhere in the new testament. moreover, if stephen was, as asserted, the direct forerunner of paul, and in his hearing enunciated { } sentiments like those ascribed to him, already expressing much more than the germ--indeed the full spirit--of pauline universality, it would be passing strange that paul not only tacitly ignores all that he owes to the proto-martyr, but vehemently protests: "but i make known unto you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. for neither did i receive it from man, nor was taught it, but by revelation of jesus christ."( ) there is no evidence whatever that such a person exercised any such influence on paul.( ) one thing only is certain, that the speech and martyrdom of stephen made so little impression on paul that, according to acts, he continued a bitter persecutor of christianity, "making havoc of the church." the statement, vi. , that "stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" is not calculated to increase confidence in the narrative as sober history; and as little is the assertion, vi. , that "all who sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel." this, we think, is evidently an instance of christian subjective opinion made objective.( ) how, we might ask, could it be known to the writer that all who sat at the council saw this? neander replies that probably it is the evidence of members of the sanhedrin of the impression made on them by the aspect of stephen.( ) the intention of the writer, however, obviously is to describe a supernatural it is further very remarkable, if it be assumed that the vision, acts vii. , actually was seen, that, in giving a list of those who have seen the risen jesus ( cor. xv. -- ), which he evidently intends to be complete, he does not include stephen. { } phenomenon,( ) and this is in his usual manner in this book, where miraculous agency is more freely employed than in any other in the canon. the session of the council commences in a regular manner,( ) but the previous arrest of stephen,( ) and the subsequent interruption of his defence, are described as a tumultuous proceeding, his death being. unsanctioned by any sentence of the council.( ) the sanhed-rin, indeed, could not execute any sentence of death without the ratification of the roman authorities,( ) and nothing is said in the narrative which implies that any regular verdict was pronounced; but, on the contrary, the tumult described in v. f. excludes such a supposition. olshausen( ) considers that, in order to avoid any collision with the roman power, the sanhedrin did not pronounce any formal judgment, but connived at the execution which some fanatics carried out. this explanation, however, is inadmissible, because it is clear that the members of the council themselves, if also the audience, { } attacked and stoned stephen.( ) the actual stoning( ) is carried out with all regard to legal forms;( ) the victim being taken out of the city,( ) and the witnesses casting the first stone,( ) and for this purpose taking off their outer garments. the whole account, with its singular mixture of utter lawlessness and formality, is extremely improbable,( ) and more especially when the speech itself is considered. the proceedings commence in an orderly manner, and the high priest calls upon stephen for his defence. the council and audience listen patiently and quietly to his speech, and no interruption takes place until he has said all that he had to sav, for it must be apparent that when the speaker abandons narrative and argument and breaks into direct invective, there could not have been any intention to prolong the address, as no expectation of calm attention after such denunciations could have been natural. the tumult cuts short the oration precisely where the author had exhausted his { } subject, and by temporary lawlessness overcomes the legal difficulty of a sentence which the sanhedrin, without the ratification of the roman authority, could not have carried out. as soon as the tumult has effected these objects, all becomes orderly and legal again; and, consequently, the witnesses can lay their garments "at a young man's feet whose name was saul." the principal actor in the work is thus dramatically introduced. as the trial commences with a supernatural illumination of the face of stephen, it ends with a supernatural vision, in which stephen sees heaven opened, and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. such a trial and such an execution present features which are undoubtedly not historical. this impression is certainly not lessened when we find how many details of the trial and death of stephen are based on the accounts in the gospels of the trial and death of jesus.( ) the irritated adversaries of stephen stir up the people and the elders and scribes, and come upon him and lead him to the council.( ) they seek false witness against him;( ) and these false witnesses accuse him of speaking against the temple and the law.( ) the false witnesses who are set up against jesus with similar testimony, according to the first two synoptics, are strangely omitted by the third. the reproduction of this trait here has much that is suggestive. the high priest asks: "are these things so?"( ) stephen, at { } the close of his speech, exclaims: "i see the heavens opened, and the son of man standing on the right hand of god." jesus says: "henceforth shall the son of man be seated on the right hand of the power of god."( ) whilst he is being stoned, stephen prays, saying: "lord jesus, receive my spirit;" and, similarly, jesus on the cross cries, with a loud voice: "father, into thy hands i commend my spirit; and, having said this, he expired."( ) stephen, as he is about to die, cries, with a loud voice: "lord, lay not this sin to their charge; and when he said this he fell asleep;" and jesus says: "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."( ) these two sayings of jesus are not given anywhere but in the third synoptic,( ) and their imitation by stephen, in another work of the same evangelist, is a peculiarity which deserves attention. it is argued by apologists( ) that nothing is more natural than that the first martyrs should have the example of the suffering jesus in their minds, and die with his expressions of love and resignation on their lips. on the other hand, taken along with other most suspicious circumstances which we have already pointed out, and with the fact, which we shall presently demonstrate, that the speech of stephen is nothing more { } than a composition by the author of acts, the singular analogies presented by this narrative with the trial and last words of jesus in the gospels seem to us an additional indication of its inauthenticity. as baur( ) and zeller( ) have well argued, the use of two expressions of jesus only found in the third synoptic is a phenomenon which is much more naturally explained by attributing them to the author, who of course knew that gospel well, than to stephen who did not know it at all.( ) the prominence which is given to this episode of the first christian martyrdom is intelligible in itself, and it acquires fresh significance when it is considered as the introduction of the apostle paul, whose perfect silence regarding the proto-martyr, however, confirms the belief which we otherwise acquire, that the whole narrative and speech, whatever unknown tradition may have suggested them, are, as we have them, to be ascribed to the author of the acts. on closer examination, one of the first questions which arises is: how could such a speech have been reported? although neander( ) contends that we are not justified in asserting that all that is narrated regarding stephen in the acts occurred in a single day, we think it cannot be doubted that the intention is to describe the arrest, trial, and execution as rapidly following each other on the same day. "they came upon him, and seized him, and { } brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, who said," &c.( ) there is no ground here for interpolating any imprisonment, and if not, then it follows clearly that stephen, being immediately called upon to answer for himself, is, at the end of his discourse, violently carried away without the city to be stoned. no preparations could have been made even to take notes of his speech, if upon any ground it were reasonable to assume the possibility of an intention to do so; and indeed it could not, under the circumstances, have been foreseen that he should either have been placed in such a position, or have been able to make a speech at all. the rapid progress of all the events described, and the excitement consequent on such tumultuous proceedings, render an ordinary explanation of the manner in which such a speech could have been preserved improbable, and it is difficult to suppose that it could have been accurately remembered, with all its curious details, by one who was present. improbable as it is, however, this is the only suggestion which can possibly be advanced. the majority of apologists suppose that the speech was heard and reported by the apostle paul himself,( ) or at least that it was communicated or written down either by a member of the sanhedrin, or by some one who was present.( ) as there is no information on the point, there is ample scope for imagination, but when we come to consider its linguistic and other peculiarities, it must be borne in { } mind that the extreme difficulty of explaining the preservation of such a speech must be an element in judging whether it is not rather a composition by the author of acts. the language in which it was delivered, again, is the subject of much difference of opinion, many maintaining that it must have originally been spoken in aramaic,( ) whilst others hold that it was delivered in greek.( ) still, a large number of critics and divines of course assert that the speech attributed to stephen is at least substantially authentic. as might naturally be expected in a case where negative criticism is arrayed against a canonical work upheld by the time-honoured authority of the church, those who dispute its authenticity( ) are in the minority. it is maintained by the latter that the language is more or less that of the writer of the rest of the work, and that the speech in fact as it lies before us is a later composition by the author of the acts of the apostles. before examining the linguistic peculiarities of the speech, we may very briefly point out that, in the course of the historical survey, many glaring contradictions of the statements of the old testament occur.( ) stephen says { } (vs. , ) that the order to abraham to leave his country was given to him in mesopotamia before he dwelt in haran; but, according to genesis (xii. ff) the call is given whilst he was living in haran. the speech (v. ) represents abraham leaving haran after the death of his father, but this is in contradiction to genesis, according to which( ) abraham was when he left haran. now, as he was born when his father terah was ,( ) and terah lived years,( ) his father was only at the time indicated, and afterwards lived years. in v. it is stated that abraham had no possession in the promised land, not even so much as to set his foot on; but, according to genesis,( ) he bought the field of ephron in machpelah. it is said (v. ) that jacob went down into egypt with souls, whereas, in the old testament, it is repeatedly said that the number was .( ) in v. , it is stated that jacob was buried in schechem in a sepulchre bought by abraham of the sons of emmor in schechem, whereas in genesis( ) jacob is said to have been buried in machpelah; the sepulchre in schechem, in which { } the bones of joseph were buried, was not bought by abraham, but by jacob.( ) moses is described (v. ) as mighty in words, but in exodus( ) he is said to be the very reverse, and aaron in fact is sent with him to speak words for him. these are some of the principal variations. it used to be argued that such mistakes were mere errors of memory, natural in a speech delivered under such circumstances and without preparation,( ) and that they are additional evidence of its authenticity, inasmuch as it is very improbable that a writer deliberately composing such a speech could have committed them. it is very clear, however, that the majority of these are not errors of memory at all, but either the exegesis prevailing at the time amongst learned jews, or traditions deliberately adopted, of which many traces are elsewhere found.( ) the form of the speech is closely similar to other speeches found in the same work. we have already in passing pointed out the analogy of parts of it to the address of peter in solomon's porch, but the speech of paul at antioch bears a still closer resemblance to it, and has been called "a mere echo of the speeches of peter and stephen."( ) we must refer the reader to our general comparison of the two speeches of peter and paul in question,( ) which sufficiently showed, we think, { } that they were not delivered by independent speakers, but on the contrary that they are nothing more than compositions by the author of the acts. these addresses which are such close copies of each other, are so markedly cast in the same mould as the speech of stephen, that they not only confirm our conclusions as to their own origin, but intensify suspicions of its authenticity. it is impossible, without reference to the speeches themselves, to shew how closely that of paul at antioch is traced on the lines of the speech of stephen, and this resemblance is much greater than can be shown by mere linguistic examination. the thoughts correspond where the words differ. there is a constant recurrence of words, however, even where the sense of the passages is not the same, and the ideas in both bear the stamp of a single mind. we shall not attempt fully to contrast these discourses here, for it would occupy too much space, and we therefore content ourselves with giving a few illustrations, begging the reader to examine the speeches themselves. [------] { } [------] { } [------] it is argued that the speech of stephen bears upon it { } the stamp of an address which was actually delivered.( ) we are not able to discover any special indication of this. such an argument, at the best, is merely the assertion of personal opinion, and cannot have any weight. it is quite conceivable that an oration actually spoken might lose its spontaneous character in a report, and on the other hand that a written composition might acquire oratorical reality from the skill of the writer. it would indeed exhibit great want of literary ability if a writer, composing a speech which he desires to represent as having actually been spoken, altogether failed to convey some impression of this. to have any application to the present case, however, it must not only be affirmed that the speech of stephen has the stamp of an address really spoken, but that it has the character of one delivered under such extraordinary circumstances, without premeditation and in the midst of tumultuous proceedings. it cannot, we think, be reasonably asserted that a speech like this is peculiarly characteristic of a man suddenly arrested by angry and excited opponents, and hurried before a council which, at its close, rushes upon him and joins in stoning him. unless the defence attributed to stephen be particularly characteristic of this, the argument in question falls to the ground. on the contrary, if the speech has one feature more strongly marked than another, it is the deliberate care with which the points referred to in the historical survey are selected and bear upon each other, and the art with which the climax is attained. in showing, as we have already done, that the speech betrays the handy work of the author of the acts, we have to a large extent disposed of any claim { } to peculiar individuality in the defence, and the linguistic analysis which we shall now make will conclusively settle the source of the composition. we must point out here in continuation that, as in the rest of the work, all the quotations in the speech are from the septuagint, and that the author follows that version even when it does not fairly represent the original.( ) we may now proceed to analyse the language of the whole episode from vi. to the end of the seventh chapter, in order to discover what linguistic analogy it bears to the rest of the acts and to the third synoptic, which for the sake of brevity we shall simply designate "luke." with the exception of a very few words in general use, every word employed in the section will be found in the following analysis, based upon bruder's 'concordance,'( ) and which is arranged in the order of the verses, although for greater clearness the whole is divided into categories. we shall commence with a list of the words in this section which are not elsewhere used in the new testament. they are as follows:--[------], vi. ; [------]t vi. ; [------], vii. ;( ) [------], vii. , but [------], occurs several times in acts, see below, vii. ; [------], vii. ; [------], vii. ; [------], vii. , this word, which is common amongst { } greek writers,( ) is used in lxx. chron. xxxi. ; [------], vii. . these nine words are all that can strictly be admitted as [------], but there are others, which, although not found in any other part of the acts or of the gospel, occur in other writings of the new testament, and which must here be noted. [------], vi. , occurring tim. i. , tim. iii. , pet. il , rev. xiii. ; [------], however, is used four times in acts, thrice in luke, and frequently elsewhere, and [------] in luke v. . [------] vi. , used rev. ii. , xxi. ; [------], vi. , rom. i. , ' cor. xv. , , gal. iv. , heb. i. , almost purely a pauline word; [------], vii. , elsewhere fourteen times; [------], vii. , also gal. i. , heb. vii. , xi. twice (lxx. gen. v. ), jude ; [------], vii. , also pet. ii. ; [------], vii. , also john vi. , tim. ii. , james iv. ; [------], vii. , also rom. iii. , heb. v. , pet. iv. ; [------], vii. , also cor. ii. , phil. ii. ; [------], vii. , also rom. xiii. , cf. gal. iii. , but the writer makes use of [------], see vii. , below; [------], vii. , also rom. xiii. , eph. iv. , , col. iii. , heb. xii. , james i. , pet, ii. . if we add these ten words to the preceding, the proportion of [------] is by no means excessive for the verses, especially when the peculiarity of the subject is considered, and it is remembered that the number of words employed in the third gospel, for instance, which are not elsewhere found, greatly exceeds that of the other gospels, and that this linguistic richness is characteristic of the author. there is another class of words which may now be { } dealt with: those which, although not elsewhere found either in the acts or gospel, are derived from the sep-tuagint version of the old testament. the author makes exclusive use of that version, and in the historical survey, of which so large a portion of the speech is composed, his mind very naturally recalls its expressions even where he does not make direct quotations, but merely gives a brief summary of its narratives. in the following list where words are not clearly taken from the septuagint version( ) of the various episodes referred to, the reasons shall be stated:-- { } we shall now, by way of disposing of them, take the words which require little special remark, but are used as well in the rest of the acts and in the gospel as in other writings of the new testament:-- [------] { } [------] { } [------] we shall now give the words which may either be regarded as characteristic of the author of the acts and gospel, or the use of which is peculiar or limited to him:-- [------] { } [------] { } [------] { } [------] to this very remarkable list of words we have still to add a number of expressions which further betray the author of the acts and gospel:-- { } [------] { } [------] { } [------] it is impossible, we think, to examine this analysis, in which we might fairly have included other points which we have passed over, without feeling the certain conviction that the speech of stephen was composed by the author of the rest of the acts of the apostles. it may not be out of place to quote some remarks of lekebusch at the close of an examination of the language of the acts in general, undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining the literary characteristics of the book, which, although originally having no direct reference to this episode in particular, may well serve to illustrate our own results:--"an unprejudiced critic must have acquired the conviction from the foregoing linguistic examination that, throughout the whole of the acts of the apostles, and partly also the { } gospel, the same style of language and expression generally prevails, and therefore that our book is an original work, independent of written sources on the whole, and proceeding from a single pen. for when the same expressions are everywhere found, when a long row of words which only recur in the gospel and acts, or comparatively only very seldom in other works of the new testament, appear equally in all parts, when certain forme of words, peculiarities of word-order, construction and phraseology, indeed even whole sentences, recur in the different sections, a compilation out of documents by different earlier writers can no longer be thought of, and it is 'beyond doubt, that we have to consider our writing as the work of a single author, who has impressed upon it the stamp of a distinct literary style' (zeller, theol. jahrb.. , p. ). the use of written sources is certainly not directly excluded by this, and probably the linguistic peculiarities, of which some of course exist in isolated sections of our work, may be referred to this. but as these peculiarities consist chiefly of [------], which may rather be ascribed to the richness of the author's vocabulary than to his talent for compilation, and in comparison with the great majority of points of agreement almost disappear, we must from the first be prepossessed against the theory that our author made use of written sources, and only allow ourselves to be moved to such a conclusion by further distinct phenomena in the various parts of our book, especially as the prologue of the gospel, so often quoted for the purpose, does not at all support it. but in any case, as has already been remarked, _the_ opinion that, in the acts of the apostles, the several parts are strung together almost without { } alteration, is quite irreconcilable with the result of our linguistic examination. zeller rightly says:--'were the author so dependent a compiler, the traces of such a proceeding must necessarily become apparent in a thorough dissimilarity of language and expression. and this dissimilarity would be all the greater if his sources, as in that case we could scarcely help admitting, belonged to widely separated spheres as regards language and mode of thought. on the other hand, it would be altogether inexplicable that, in all parts of the work, the same favourite expressions, the same turns, the same peculiarities of vocabulary and syntax should meet us. this phenomenon only becomes conceivable when we suppose that the contents of our work were brought into their present form by one and the same person, and that the work as it lies before us was not merely _compiled_ by some one, but was also _composed_ by him.'"( ) should an attempt be made to argue that, even if it be conceded that the language is that of the author of acts, the sentiments may be those actually expressed by stephen, it would at once be obvious that such an explanation is not only purely arbitrary and incapable of proof, but opposed to the facts of the case. it is not the language only which can be traced to the author of the rest of the acts but, as we have shown, the whole plan of the speech is the same as that of others in different parts of the work. stephen speaks exactly as peter does before him and paul at a later period. there is just that amount of variety which a writer of not unlimited resources can introduce to express the views of { } different men under different circumstances, but there is so much which is nevertheless common to them all, that community of authorship cannot be denied. on the other hand, the improbabilities of the narrative, the singular fact that stephen is not mentioned by the apostle paul, and the peculiarities which may be detected in the speech itself receive their very simple explanation when linguistic analysis so clearly demonstrates that, whatever small nucleus of fact may lie at the basis of the episode, the speech actually ascribed to the martyr stephen is nothing more than a later composition put into his mouth by the author of the acts. chapter vi. philip and the eunuch. peter and cornelius. we have been forced to enter at such length into the discussion of the speech and martyrdom of stephen, that we cannot afford space to do more than merely glance at the proceedings of his colleague philip, as we pass on to more important points in the work before us. the author states that a great persecution broke out at the time of stephen's death, and that all [------] the community of jerusalem were scattered abroad "except the apostles" [------]. that the heads of the church, who were well known, should remain unmolested in jerusalem, whilst the whole of the less known members of the community were persecuted and driven to flight, is certainly an extraordinary and suspicious statement.( ) even apologists are obliged to admit that the account of the dispersion of the whole church is hyperbolic;( ) but exaggeration and myth enter so largely and persistently into the composition of the acts of the apostles, that it is difficult, after any attentive scrutiny, seriously to treat the work as in any strict sense historical at all. it has been { } conjectured by some critics, as well in explanation of this statement as in connection with theories regarding the views of stephen, that the persecution in question was limited to the hellenistic community to which stephen belonged, whilst the apostles and others, who were known as faithful observers of the law and of the temple worship,( ) were not regarded as heretics by the orthodox jews.( ) the narrative in the acts does not seem to support the view that the persecution was limited to the hellenists;( ) but beyond the fact vouched for by paul that about this time there was a persecution, we have no data whatever regarding that event. philip, it is said, went down to the city of samaria, and "was preaching the christ"( ) to them. as the statement that "the multitudes with one accord gave heed to the things spoken" to them by philip is ascribed to the miracles which he performed there, we are unable to regard the narrative as historical, and still less so when we consider the supernatural agency by which his further proceedings are directed and aided. we need only remark that the samaritans, although only partly of jewish origin, and rejecting the jewish scriptures with the exception of the pentateuch, worshipped the same god as the jews, were circumcised, and were equally prepared as a nation to accept the messiah. the statement that the apostles peter and john went to samaria, in order, by the imposition of hands, to bestow the gift of the holy spirit to the { } converts baptized by philip, does not add to the general credibility of the history.( ) as bleek( ) has well remarked, nothing is known or said as to whether the conversion of the samaritans effected any change in their relations towards the jewish people and the temple in jerusalem; and the mission of philip to the samaritans, as related in the acts, cannot in any case be considered as having any important bearing on the question before us. we shall not discuss the episode of simon at all, although, in the opinion of eminent critics, it contains much that is suggestive of the true character of the acts of the apostles. an "angel of the lord" [------] speaks to philip, and desires him to go to the desert way from jerusalem to gaza,( ) where the spirit tells him( ) to draw near and join himself to the chariot of a man of ethiopia who had come to worship at jerusalem, and was then returning home. philip runs thither, and hearing him read isaiah, expounds the passage to him, and at his own request the eunuch is at once baptized. "and when they came up out of the water, the spirit of the lord caught away [------] philip, and the eunuch saw him no more; for he went on his way rejoicing; but philip was found at azotus."( ) attempts have of course been made to explain naturally the supernatural features of this narrative.( ) ewald, who is master of the art of rationalistic explanation, says, with regard to the order given by the angel: "he felt impelled as by the power and the clear voice of an angel" to go in that { } direction; and the final miracle is disposed of by a contrast of the disinterestedness of philip with the conduct of gehazi, the servant of elisha: it was the desire to avoid reward, "which led him all the more hurriedly to leave his new convert"; "and it was as though the spirit of the lord himself snatched him from him another way," &c, &c. "from gaza philip repaired rapidly northward to ashdod, &c."(l) the great mass of critics reject such evasions, and recognise that the author relates miraculous occurrences. the introduction of supernatural agency in this way, however, removes the story from the region of history. such statements are antecedently, and, indeed, coming from an unknown writer and without corroboration, are absolutely incredible, and no means exist of ascertaining what original tradition may have assumed this mythical character. zeller supposes that only the personality and nationality of the eunuch are really historical.( ) all that need here be added is, that the great majority of critics agree that the ethiopian was probably at least a proselyte of the gate,( ) as his going to jerusalem to worship seems clearly to indicate.( ) in any { } case, the mythical elements of this story, as well as the insufficiency of the details, deprive the narrative of historical value.( ) the episodes of stephen's speech and martyrdom and the mission of philip are, in one respect especially, unimportant for the inquiry on which we are now more immediately engaged. they are almost completely isolated from the rest of the acts: that is to say, no reference whatever is subsequently made to them as forming any precedent for the guidance of the church in the burning question which soon arose within it. peter, as we shall see, when called upon to visit and baptize cornelius, exhibits no recollection of his own mission to the samaritans, and no knowledge of the conversion of the ethiopian. moreover, as stephen plays so small a part in the history, and philip does not reappear upon the scene after this short episode, no opportunity is afforded of comparing one part of their history with the rest. in passing on to the account of the baptism of cornelius, we have at least the advantage of contrasting the action attributed to peter with his conduct on earlier and later occasions, and a test is thus supplied which is of no small value for ascertaining the truth of the whole representation. to this narrative we must now address ourselves. as an introduction to the important events at cæsarea, the author of the acts relates the particulars of a visit which peter pays to lydda and joppa, during the course of which he performs two very remarkable miracles. at the former town he finds a certain man named Æneas, { } paralysed, who had lain on a bed for eight years. peter said to him: "Æneas, jesus the christ healeth thee; arise and make thy bed." and he arose immediately.( ) as the consequence of this miracle, the writer states that: "all who dwelt at lydda and the sharon saw him, who turned to the lord."( ) the exaggeration of such a statement( ) is too palpable to require argument the effect produced by the supposed miracle is almost as incredible as the miracle itself, and the account altogether has little claim to the character of sober history. this mighty work, however, is altogether eclipsed by a miracle which peter performs about the same time at joppa. a certain woman, a disciple, named tabitha, who was "full of good works," fell sick in those days and died, and when they washed her, they laid her in an upper chamber, and sent to peter at lydda, beseeching him to come to them without delay. when peter arrived they took him into the upper chamber, where all the widows stood weeping, and showed coats and garments which dorcas used to make while she was with them. "but peter put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed; and, turning to the body, said: tabitha, arise. and she opened her eyes, and when she saw peter she sat up. and he gave her his hand, and raised her up, and when he called the saints and the widows, he presented her alive." apparently, the raising of the dead did not produce as much effect as the cure of the paralytic, for the writer only adds here: "and it was known throughout all joppa; and many believed in the lord."( ) we shall hereafter have to speak of the perfect calmness and absence of surprise with which these early writers relate { } the most astonishing miracles. it is evident from the manner in which this story is narrated that the miracle was anticipated.( ) the [------] in which the body is laid cannot have been the room generally used for that purpose, but is probably the single upper chamber of such a house which the author represents as specially adopted in anticipation of peter's arrival.( ) the widows who stand by weeping and showing the garments made by the deceased complete the preparation. as peter is sent for after dorcas had died, it would seem as though the writer intimated that her friends expected him to raise her from the dead. the explanation of this singular phenomenon, however, becomes clear when it is remarked that the account of this great miracle is closely traced from that of the raising of jairus' daughter in the synoptics,( ) and more especially in the second gospel.( ) in that instance jesus is sent for; and, on coming to the house, he finds people "weeping and wailing greatly." he puts them all forth, like peter; and, taking the child by the hand, says to her: "'talitha koum,' which is being interpreted: maiden, i say unto thee, arise. and immediately the maiden arose and walked."( ) baur and others( ) conjecture that even the name "tabitha, which by { } interpretation is called dorcas," was suggested by the words [------], above quoted. the hebrew original of [------] signifies "gazelle," and they contend that it was used, like [------], in the sense generally of: maiden.(l) these two astonishing miracles, reported by an unknown writer, and without any corroboration, are absolutely incredible, and cannot prepossess any reasonable mind with confidence in the narrative to which they form an introduction, and the natural distrust which they awaken is folly confirmed when we find supernatural agency employed at every stage of the following history. we are told( ) that a certain devout centurion, named cornelius, "saw in a vision plainly" [------] an angel of god, who said to him: "thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before god. and now send men to joppa, and call for one simon, who is surnamed peter, whose house is by the sea side." after giving these minute directions, the angel departed, [------] { } and cornelius sent three messengers to joppa. just as they approached the end of their journey on the morrow, peter went up to the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, the usual time of prayer among the jews.( ) he became very hungry, and while his meal was being prepared he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending as it had been a great sheet let down by four corners, in which were all four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the air. "and there came a voice to him: rise, peter; kill and eat. but peter said: not so lord; for i never ate anything common or unclean. and the voice came unto him again a second time: what god cleansed call not thou common. this was done thrice; and straightway the vessel was taken up into heaven." while peter "was doubting in himself" what the vision which he had seen meant, the men sent by cornelius arrived, and "the spirit said unto him: behold men are seeking thee; but arise and get thee down and go with them doubting nothing, for i have sent them." peter went with them on the morrow, accompanied by some of the brethren, and cornelius was waiting for them with his kinsmen and near friends whom he had called together for the purpose. "and as peter was coming in, cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshipped. but peter took him up, saying: arise; i myself also am a man."( ) going in, he finds many persons assembled, to whom he said: "ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a jew to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation; and yet god showed me that i should not call { } any man common or unclean. therefore also i came without gainsaying when sent for. i ask, therefore, for what reason ye sent for me?" cornelius narrates the particulars of his vision and continues: "now, therefore, we are all present before god to hear all the things that have been commanded thee of the lord. then peter opened his mouth and said: of a truth i perceive that god is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him," and soon. while peter is speaking, "the holy spirit fell on all those who heard the word. and they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with peter, because that on the gentiles also has been poured out the gift of the holy spirit; for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify god. then answered peter: can any one forbid the water that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy spirit as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the lord." we shall not waste time discussing the endeavours of kuinoel, neander, lange, ewald, and others, to explain away as much as possible the supernatural elements of this narrative, for their attempts are repudiated by most apologists, and the miraculous phenomena are too clearly described and too closely connected with the course of the story to be either ignored or eliminated. can such a narrative, heralded by such miracles as the instantaneous cure of the paralytic Æneas, and the raising from the dead of the maiden dorcas, be regarded as sober history? of course many maintain that it can, and comparatively few have declared themselves against this.( ) we have, however, merely the { } narrative of an unknown author to set against unvarying experience, and that cannot much avail. we must now endeavour to discover how far this episode is consistent with the rest of the facts narrated in this book itself, and with such trustworthy evidence as we can elsewhere bring to bear upon it. we have already in an earlier part of our inquiry pointed out that in the process of exhibiting a general parallelism between the apostles peter and paul, a very close _pendant_ to this narrative has been introduced by the author into the history of paul. in the story of the conversion of paul, the apostle has his vision on the way to damascus,( ) and about the same time the lord in a vision desires ananias ("a devout man, according to the law, having a good report of all the jews that dwell" in damascus),( ) "arise, and go to the street which is called straight, and inquire in the house of judas for one named saul of tarsus; for behold he prayeth, and saw in a vision a man named ananias coming in and putting his hand on him that he might receive sight." on this occasion also the gift of the holy spirit is conferred and saul is baptized.( ) whilst such miraculous agency is so rare elsewhere, it is so common in the acts of the apostles that the employment of visions and of angels, under every circumstance, is one of the characteristics of the author, and may therefore be set down to his own imagination. no one who examines this episode attentively, we { } think, can doubt that the narrative before us is composed in apologetic interest,( ) and is designed to have a special bearing upon the problem as to the relation of the pauline gospel to the preaching of the twelve, baur( ) has acutely pointed out the significance of the very place assigned to it in the general history, and its insertion immediately after the conversion of paul, and before the commencement of his ministry, as a legitimation of his apostleship of the gentiles. one point stands clearly out of the strange medley of jewish prejudice, christian liberalism, and supernatural interference which constitute the elements of the story: the actual conviction of peter regarding the relation of the jew to the gentile, that the gospel is addressed to the former and that the gentile is excluded,( ) which has to be removed by a direct supernatural revelation from heaven. the author recognises that this was the general view of the primitive church, and this is the only particular in which we can perceive historical truth in the narrative. the complicated machinery of visions and angelic messengers is used to justify the abandonment of jewish restrictions, which was preached by paul amidst so much virulent opposition. peter anticipates and justifies paul in his ministry of the uncircumcision, and the overthrow of mosaic barriers has the sanction and seal of a divine command. we have to see whether the history itself { } does not betray its mythical character, not only in its supernatural elements, but in its inconsistency with other known or narrated incidents in the apostolical narrative. there has been much difference of opinion as to whether the centurion cornelius had joined himself in any recognised degree to the jewish religion before this incident, and a majority of critics maintain that he is represented as a proselyte of the gate.( ) the terms in which he is described, [------], certainly seem to indicate this, and probably the point would not have been questioned but for the fact that the writer evidently intends to deal with the subject of gentile conversion, with which the representation that cornelius was already a proselyte would somewhat clash.( ) whether a proselyte or not, the roman centurion is said to be "devout and fearing god with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and praying to god always;"( ) and probably the ambiguity as to whether he had actually become affiliated in any way to mosaism is intentional. when peter, however, with his scruples removed by the supernatural communication with which he had just been favoured, indicates their previous strength by the statement: "ye know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a jew to keep company with or come unto { } one of another nation,"( ) the author evidently oversteps the mark, and betrays the unhistorical nature of the narrative; for such an affirmation not only could not have been made by peter, but could only have been advanced by a writer who was himself a gentile, and writing at a distance from the events described. there is no injunction of the mosaic law declaring such intercourse unlawful,( ) nor indeed is such a rule elsewhere heard of, and even apologists who refer to the point have no show of authority by which to support such a statement( ) not only was there no legal prohibition, but it is impossible to conceive that there was any such exclusiveness practised by traditional injunction.( ) as de wette appropriately remarks, moreover, even if such a prohibition existed as regards idolaters, it would still be inconceivable how it could apply to cornelius: "a righteous man and fearing god, and of good report among all the nation of the jews."( ) it is also inconsistent with the zeal for proselytism displayed by the pharisees,( ) the strictest sect of the jews; and the account given by josephus of the { } conversion of izates of adiabene is totally against it.( ) there is a slight trait which, added to others, tends to complete the demonstration of the unhistorical character of this representation. peter is said to have lived many days in joppa with one simon, a tanner, and it is in his house that the messengers of cornelius find him.( ) now the tanner's trade was considered impure amongst the jews,( ) and it was almost pollution to live in simon's house. it is argued by some commentators that the fact that peter lodged there is mentioned to show that he had already emancipated himself from jewish prejudices.( ) however this may be, it is strangely inconsistent that a jew who has no objection to live with a tanner should, at the same time, consider it unlawful to hold intercourse of any kind with a pious gentile, who, if not actually a proselyte of the gate, had every qualification for becoming one. this indifference to the unclean and polluting trade of the tanner, moreover, is inconsistent with the reply which peter gives to the voice which bids him slay and eat:--"not so, lord, for i never ate anything common or unclean." no doubt the intercourse to which peter refers indicates, or at least includes, eating and drinking with one of another country, and this alone could present any intelligible difficulty, for the mere transaction of business or conversation with strangers must have been daily necessary to the jews. it must be remarked, however, that, when peter makes the statement which we are discussing, nothing whatever is said of eating with the centurion or sitting with him { } at table. this leads to a striking train of reflection upon the whole episode. it is a curious thing that the supernatural vision, which is designed to inform peter and the apostles that the gentiles might be received into the church, should take the form of a mere intimation that the distinction of clean and unclean animals was no longer binding, and that he might indifferently kill and eat one might have thought that, on the supposition that heaven desired to give peter and the church a command to admit the gentiles unconditionally to the benefits of the gospel, this would be simply and clearly stated. this was not done at all, and the intimation by which peter supposes himself justified in considering it lawful to go to cornelius is, in the first place, merely on the subject of animals defined as clean and unclean. doubtless the prohibition as to certain meats might tend to continue the separation between jew and gentile, and the disregard of such distinctions of course promoted general intercourse with strangers; but this by no means explains why the abrogation of this distinction is made the intimation to receive gentiles into the church. when peter returns to jerusalem we are told that "they of the circumcision"--that is to say, the whole church there, since at that period all were "of the circumcision," and this phrase further indicates that the writer has no historical stand-point--contended with him. the subject of the contention we might suppose was the baptism of gentiles; but not so: the charge brought against him was:--"thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them."( ) the subject of paul's dispute with peter at antioch simply was that, "before that certain came from james, he did eat with { } the gentiles; but when they came he withdrew, fearing them of the circumcision."( ) that the whole of these passages should turn merely on the fact of eating with men who were uncircumcised, is very suggestive, and as the church at jerusalem make no allusion to the baptism of uncircumcised gentiles, it would lead to the inference that nothing was known of such an event, and that the circumstance was simply added to some other narrative; and this is rendered all the more probable by the fact that, in the affair at antioch as well as throughout the epistle to the galatians, peter is very far from acting as one who had been the first to receive uncircumcised gentiles freely into the church. it is usually asserted that the vision of peter abrogated the distinction of clean and unclean animals so long existing in the mosaic law,( ) but there is no evidence that any subsequent gradual abandonment of the rule was ascribed to such a command; and it is remarkable that peter himself not only does not, as we shall presently see, refer to this vision as authority for disregarding the distinction of clean and unclean meats, and for otherwise considering nothing common or unclean, but acts as if such a vision had never taken place. the famous decree of the council of jerusalem, moreover, makes no allusion to any modification of the mosaic law in the case of jewish christians, whatever relaxation it may seem to grant to gentile converts, and there is no external evidence of any kind whatever that so important an { } abolition of ancient legal prescriptions was thus introduced into christendom. we have, however, fortunately one test of the historical value of this whole episode, to which we have already briefly referred, but which we must now more closely apply. paul himself, in his epistle to the galatians, narrates the particulars of a scene between himself and peter at antioch, of which no mention is made in the acts of the apostles, and we think that no one can fairly consider that episode without being convinced that it is utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that the vision which we are now examining can ever have appeared to peter, or that he can have played the part attributed to him in the conversion and baptism of uncircumcised gentiles. paul writes: "but when cephas came to antioch, i withstood him to the face, because he was condemned. for before that certain came from james, he did eat with the gentiles, but when they came he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision, and the other jews also joined in his hypocrisy."( ) it will be remembered that, in the case of cornelius, "they of the circumcision" in jerusalem, at the head of whom was james, from whom came those "of the circumcision" of whom peter was afraid at antioch, contended with peter for going in "to men uncircumcised and eating with them,"( ) the very thing which was in question at antioch. in the acts, peter is represented as defending his conduct by relating the divine vision under the guidance of which he acted, and the author states as the result that, "when they heard these things they held their peace and glorified god, saying: then to the gentiles also god gave repentance { } unto life."( ) this is the representation of the author of the vision and of the conversion of cornelius, but very different is peter's conduct as described by the apostle paul, very dissimilar the phenomena presented by a narrative upon which we can rely. the "certain who came from james" can never have heard of the direct communication from heaven which justified peter's conduct, and can never have glorified god in the manner described, or peter could not have had any reason to fear them; for a mere reference to his vision, and to the sanction of the church of jerusalem, must have been sufficient to reconcile them to his freedom. then, is it conceivable that after such a vision, and after being taught by god himself not to call any man or thing common or unclean, peter could have acted as he did for fear of them of the circumcision? his conduct is convincing evidence that he knew as little of any such vision as those who came from james. on the other hand, if we require further proof it is furnished by the apostle paul himself. is it conceivable that, if such an episode had ever really occurred, the apostle paul would not have referred to it upon this occasion? what more appropriate argument could he have used, what more legitimate rebuke could he have administered, than merely to have reminded peter of his own vision? he both rebukes him and argues, but his rebuke and his argument have quite a different complexion; and we confidently affirm that no one can read that portion of the epistle to the galatians without feeling certain that, had the writer been aware of such a divine communication--and we think it must be conceded without question that, if it had taken place, he { } must have been aware of it( )--he would have referred to bo direct and important an authority. neither here nor in the numerous places where such an argument would have been so useful to the apostle does paul betray the slightest knowledge of the episode of cornelius. the historic occurrence at antioch, so completely ignored by the author of the acts, totally excludes the mythical story of cornelius.( ) there are merely one or two other points in connection with the episode to which we must call attention. in his address to cornelius, peter says: "of a truth i perceive that god is no respecter of persons" [------]. now this is not only a thoroughly pauline sentiment, but paul has more than once made use of precisely the same expression. rom. ii. . "for there is no respect of persons with god "[------], and, again, gal. ii. ," god respecteth no man's person," [------].( ) the author of the acts was certainly acquainted with the epistles of paul, and the very manner in which he represents peter as employing this expression betrays the application of a sentiment previously in his mind, "of a truth i perceive," &c. the circumstance confirms what paul had already said.( ) then, in the defence of his conduct at jerusalem, peter is represented as saying: "and i remembered the word of the lord, indeed the reference to this case, supposed to be made by peter himself, in paul's presence, excludes the idea of ignorance, if the acts be treated as historical. compare further x. ff. with rom. ii. iii., &o. the sentiments and even the words are pauline. { } how he said, john indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the holy spirit."(l) now these words are by all the gospels put into the mouth of john the baptist, and not of jesus,( ) but the author of the acts seems to put them into the mouth of jesus at the beginning of the work,( ) and their repetition here is only an additional proof of the fact that the episode of cornelius, as it stands before us, is not historical, but is merely his own composition. the whole of this narrative, with its complicated series of miracles, is evidently composed to legitimate the free reception into the christian church of gentile converts and, to emphasize the importance of the divine ratification of their admission, peter is made to repeat to the church of jerusalem the main incidents which had just been fully narrated. on the one hand, the previous jewish exclusiveness both of peter and of the church is displayed, first, in the resistance of the apostle, which can only be overcome by the vision and the direct order of the holy spirit, and by the manifest outpouring of the spirit upon the centurion and his household; and second, in the contention of them of the circumcision, which is only overcome by an account of the repeated signs of divine purpose and approval. the universality of the gospel could not be more broadly proclaimed than in the address of peter to cornelius. not the jews alone, "but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him." pauline principles are thus anticipated and, as we have pointed out, are expressed almost in the words of the apostle of the gentiles.( ) the jews who go with { } peter were astonished because that on the gentiles also had been poured out the gift of the holy spirit,( ) and the church of jerusalem, on hearing of these things, glorified god that repentance unto life had been given to the gentiles. it is impossible that the admission of the gentiles to the privileges of the church could be more prominently signified than by this episode, introduced by prodigious miracles and effected by supernatural machinery. where, however, are the consequences of this marvellous recognition of the gentiles? it does not in the slightest degree preclude the necessity for the council, which we shall presently consider; it does not apparently exercise any influence on james and the church of jerusalem; peter, indeed, refers vaguely to it, but as a matter out of date and almost forgotten; paul, in all his disputes with the emissaries of the church of jerusalem, in all his pleas for the freedom of his gentile converts, never makes the slightest allusion to it; it remains elsewhere unknown and, so far as any evidence goes, utterly without influence upon the primitive church.( ) this will presently become more apparent; but already it is clear enough to those who will exercise calm reason that it is impossible to consider this narrative with its tissue of fruitless miracles as a historical account of the development of the church. chapter vii. paul the apostle of the gentiles we have now arrived at the point in our examination of the acts in which we have the inestimable advantage of being able to compare the narrative of the unknown author with the distinct statements of the apostle paul. in doing so, we must remember that the author must have been acquainted with the epistles which are now before us, and supposing it to be his purpose to present a certain view of the transactions in question, whether for apologetic or conciliatory reasons or for any other cause, it is obvious that it would not be reasonable to expect divergencies of so palpable a nature that any reader of the letters must at once too clearly perceive such contradictions. when the acts were written, it is true, the author could not have known that the epistles of paul were to attain the high canonical position which they now occupy, and might, therefore, use his materials more freely; still a certain superficial consistency it would be natural to expect. unfortunately, our means of testing the statements of the author are not so minute as is desirable, although they are often of much value, and seeing the great facility with which, by apparently slight alterations and omissions, a different complexion can be given to circumstances regarding which no very { } full details exist elsewhere, we must be prepared to seize every indication which may enable us to form a just estimate of the nature of the writing which we are examining. in the first two chapters of his epistle to the galatians, the apostle paul relates particulars regarding some important epochs of his life, which likewise enter into the narrative of the acts of the apostles. the apostle gives an account of his own proceedings immediately after his conversion, and of the visit which about that time he paid to jerusalem; and, further, of a second visit to jerusalem fourteen years later, and to these we must now direct our attention. we defer consideration of the narrative of the actual conversion of paul for the present, and merely intend here to discuss the movements and conduct of the apostle immediately subsequent to that event. the acts of the apostles represent paul as making five journeys to jerusalem subsequent to his joining the christian body. the first, ix. ff., takes place immediately after his conversion; the second, xi. , xii. , is upon an occasion when the church at antioch are represented as sending relief to the brethren of judæa by the hands of barnabas and saul, during a time of famine; the third visit to jerusalem, xv. ff., paul likewise pays in company with barnabas, both being sent by the church of antioch to confer with the apostles and elders as to the necessity of circumcision, and the obligation to observe the mosaic law in the case of gentile converts; the fourth, xviii. ff, when he goes to ephesus with priscilla and aquila, "having shaved his head in cenchrea, for he had a vow;" and the fifth and last, xxi. ff, when the disturbance took place in the temple which led to his arrest and journey to rome. { } the circumstances and general character of these visits to jerusalem, and more especially of that on which the momentous conference is described as having taken place, are stated with so much precision, and they present features of such marked difference, that it might have been supposed there could not have been any difficulty in identifying, with certainty, at least the visits to which the apostle refers in his letter, more especially as upon both occasions he mentions important particulars which characterised those visits. it is a remarkable fact, however, that, such are the divergences between the statements of the unknown author and of the apostle, upon no point has there been more discussion amongst critics and divines from the very earliest times, or more decided difference of opinion. upon general grounds, we have already seen, there has been good reason to doubt the historical character of the acts. is it not a singularly suggestive circumstance that, when it is possible to compare the authentic representations of paul with the narrative of the acts, even apologists perceive so much opening for doubt and controversy? the visit described in the ninth chapter of the acts is generally( ) identified with that which is mentioned in the first chapter of the epistle. this unanimity, however, arises mainly from the circumstance that both writers clearly represent that visit as the first which paul paid to jerusalem after his conversion, for the details of the two narratives are anything but in agreement with each other. although, therefore, critics are forced to agree as to the bare identity of the visit, this harmony is immediately disturbed on examining the two accounts, and whilst the one party find the statements in the acts there have, however, been differences of opinion also regarding this. { } reconcilable with those of paul, a large body more or less distinctly declare them to be contradictory, and unhistorical.( ) in order that the question at issue may be fairly laid before the reader, we shall give the two accounts in parallel columns. [------] { } [------] now, it is obvious that the representation in the acts of what paul did after his conversion differs very widely from the account which the apostle himself gives of the matter. in the first place, not a word is said in the former of the journey into arabia; but, on the contrary, it is excluded, and the statement which replaces it directly contradicts that of paul. the apostle says that after his conversion: "immediately(l) [------] i conferred not with flesh and blood," but "went away into arabia," the author of the acts says that he spent "some days" [------] with the disciples in damascus, and "immediately" [------] began to preach in the synagogues. paul's feelings are so completely misrepresented that, instead of that desire for retirement and solitude which his { } words express,( ) he is described as straightway plunging into the vortex of public life in damascus. the general apologetic explanation is, that the author of the acts either was not aware of the journey into arabia, or that, his absence there having been short, he did not consider it necessary to mention it there are no data for estimating the length of time which paul spent in arabia, but the fact that the apostle mentions it with so much emphasis proves not only that he attached considerable weight to the episode, but that the duration of his visit could not have been unimportant. in any case, the author of the acts, whether ignorantly or not, boldly describes the apostle as doing precisely what he did not. to any ordinary reader, moreover, his whole account of paul's preaching at damascus certainly excludes altogether the idea of such a journey, and the argument that it can be. inserted anywhere is purely arbitrary. there are many theories amongst apologists, however, as to the part of the narrative in acts, in which the arabian journey can be placed. by some it is assigned to a period before he commenced his active labours, and therefore before ix. ,( ) from which the.words of the author repulse it with singular clearness; others intercalate it with even less reason between ix. and ;( ) a few discover some indication of it in the [------] of ver. ,( ) an expression, however, which refuses to be forced into such service; a greater number place it in the[------] of ver. ,( ) making that elastic phrase embrace this as well { } as other difficulties till it snaps under the strain. it seems evident to an unprejudiced reader that the [------] are represented as passed in damascus.( ) and, lastly, some critics place it after ix. , regardless of paul's statement that from arabia he returned again to damascus, which, under the circumstances mentioned in acts, he was not likely to do, and indeed it is obvious that he is there supposed to have at once gone from damascus to jerusalem. these attempts at reconciliation are useless. it is of no avail to find time into which a journey to arabia and the stay there might be forcibly thrust. there still remains the fact that so far from the arabian visit being indicated in the acts, the [------] of ix. , compared with the [------] of gal. i. , positively excludes it, and proves that the narrative of the former is not historical.( ) there is another point in the account in acts which further demands attention. the impression conveyed by the narrative is that paul went up to jerusalem not very long after his conversion. the omission of the visit to arabia shortens the interval before he did so, by removing causes of delay, and whilst no expressions are used which imply a protracted stay in damascus, incidents are introduced which indicate that the purpose of the writer was to represent the apostle as losing no time after his conversion before associating himself with the elder we shall not discuss the indication given in cor. xi. of the cause of his leaving damascus, although several contradictory statements seem to be made in it. { } apostles and obtaining their recognition of his ministry; and this view, we shall see, is confirmed by the peculiar account which is given of what took place at jerusalem. the apostle distinctly states, i. , that three years after his conversion he went up to visit peter.( ) in the acts he is represented as spending "some days" [------] with the disciples, and the only other chronological indication given is that, after "many days" [------], the plot occurred which forced him to leave damascus. it is argued that [------] is an indefinite period, which may, according to the usage of the author( ) indicate a considerable space of time, and certainly rather express a long than a short period.( ) the fact is, however, that the instances cited are evidence, in themselves, against the supposition that the author can have had any intention of expressing a period of three years by the words [------]. we suppose that no one has ever suggested that peter staid three years in the house of simon the tanner at joppa (ix. ); or, that when it is said that paul remained "many days" at corinth after the insurrection of the jews, the author intends to speak of some years, when in fact the [------] contrasted with the expression (xviii. ): "he continued there a year and six months," used regarding his stay previous to that disturbance, evidently reduces the "yet many days" subsequently spent there to a very small compass. again, has any one ever suggested that in the "the 'straightway' of ver. leads to this conclusion: 'at first i conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only after the lapse of three years that i went to jerusalem.'" lightfoot, oalatians, p. . "the difference between the vague 'many days' of the acts and the definite 'three years' of the epistle is such as might be expected from the circumstances of the two writers." lightfoot, lb., p. , note . { } account of paul's voyage to rome, where it is said (xxvii. ) that, after leaving myrra "and sailing slowly many days" [------], they had scarcely got so far as cnidus, an interval of months, not to say years, is indicated? it is impossible to suppose that, by such an expression, the writer intended to indicate a period of three years.( ) that the narrative of the acts actually represents paul as going up to jerusalem soon after his conversion, and certainly not merely at the end of three years, is obvious from the statement in ver. , that when paul arrived at jerusalem, and was assaying to join himself to the disciples, all were afraid of him, and would not believe in his conversion. the author could certainly not have stated this, if he had desired to imply that paul had already been a christian, and publicly preached with so much success at damascus, for three years.( ) indeed, the statements in ix. are irreconcilable with the declaration of the apostle, whatever view be taken of the previous narrative of the acts. if it be assumed that the author wishes to describe the visit to jerusalem as taking place three years after his conversion, then the ignorance of that event amongst the brethren there and their distrust of paul are utterly inconsistent and incredible; whilst if, on the other hand, he represents the apostle as going to jerusalem with but little delay in damascus, as we contend he does, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the acts, whilst thus giving a narrative consistent with itself, { } distinctly contradicts the deliberate assertions of the apostle. it is absolutely incredible that the conversion of a well-known persecutor of the church (viii. ff.), effected in a way which is represented as so sudden and supernatural, and accompanied by a supposed vision of the lord, could for three years have remained unknown to the community of jerusalem. so striking a triumph for christianity must have been rapidly circulated throughout the church, and the fact that he who formerly persecuted was now zealously preaching the faith which once he destroyed must long have been generally known in jerusalem, which was in such constant communication with damascus. the author of the acts continues in the same strain, stating that barnabas, under the circumstances just described, took paul and brought him to the apostles [------], and declared to them the particulars of his vision and conversion, and how he had preached boldly at damascus.( ) no doubt is left that this is the first intimation the apostles had received of such extraordinary events. after this, we are told that paul was with them coming in and going out at jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the lord. here again the declaration of paul is explicit, and distinctly contradicts this story both in the letter and the spirit. he makes no mention of barnabas. he states that he went to jerusalem specially with the view of making the acquaintance of peter, with whom he remained fifteen days; but he emphatically says:--"but other of the apostles saw i not, save [------] james, the lord's brother;" and then he adds the solemn declaration { } regarding his account of this visit:--"now the things which i write unto you, behold, before god, i lie not." an asseveration made in this tone excludes the supposition of inaccuracy or careless vagueness, and the specific statements have all the force of sworn evidence. instead of being presented "to the apostles," therefore, and going in and out with them at jerusalem, we have here the emphatic assurance that, in addition to peter, paul saw no one except "james, the lord's brother." there has been much discussion as to the identity of this james, and whether he was an apostle or not, but into this it is unnecessary for us to enter. most writers agree at least that he is the same james, the head of the church at jerusalem, whom we again frequently meet with in the pauline epistles and in the acts, and notably in the account of the apostolic council. the exact interpretation to be put upon the expression [------] has also been the subject of great controversy, the question being whether james is here really called an apostle or not; whether [------] is to be understood as applying solely to the verb, in which case the statement would mean that he saw no other of the apostles, but only james;( ) or to the whole phrase, which would express that he had seen no other of the apostles save james.( ) it is admitted by many of those who think that in this case the latter signification must be adopted that grammatically either interpretation is permissible. even supposing that { } rightly or wrongly james is here referred to as an apostle, the statement of the acts is, in spirit, quite opposed to that of the epistle; for when we are told that paul is brought "to the apostles" [------], the linguistic usage of the writer implies that he means much more than merely peter and james. it seems impossible to reconcile the statement, ix. , with the solemn assurance of paul,( ) and if we accept what the apostle says as truth, and we cannot doubt it, it must be admitted that the account in the acts is unhistorical. we arrive at the very same conclusion on examining the rest of the narrative. in the acts, paul is represented as being with the apostles going in and out, preaching openly in jerusalem, and disputing with the grecian jews.( ) no limit is here put to his visit, and it is difficult to conceive that what is narrated is intended to describe a visit of merely fifteen days. a subsequent statement in the acts, however, explains and settles the point paul is represented as declaring to king agrippa, xxvi. f.: "wherefore, king agrippa, i was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but first unto those in damascus, and throughout all the region of judaea, and to the gentiles, i was declaring that they should repent { } and turn to god," &c. however this may be, the statement of paul does not admit the interpretation of such public ministry. his express purpose in going to jerusalem was, not to preach, but to make the acquaintance of peter; and it was a marked characteristic of paul to avoid preaching in ground already occupied by the other apostles before him.( ) not only is the account in acts apparently excluded by such considerations and by the general tenor of the epistle, but it is equally so by the direct words of the apostle (i. ):--"i was unknown by face unto the churches of judaea." it is argued that the term: "churches of judæa" excludes jerusalem.( ) it might possibly be asserted with reason that such an expression as "the churches of jerusalem" might exclude the churches of judæa, but to say that the apostle, writing elsewhere to the galatians of a visit to jerusalem, and of his conduct at that time, intends, when speaking of the "churches of judæa," to exclude the principal city, seems to us arbitrary and unwarrantable. the whole object of the apostle is to show the privacy of his visit and his independence of the elder apostles. he does not use the expression as a contrast to jerusalem. nothing in his account leads one to think of any energetic preaching during the visit, and the necessity of finding some way of excluding jerusalem from the apostle's expression is simply thrust upon apologists by the account in acts. two passages are referred to as supporting the exclusion of jerusalem from "the churches of judaea." in john iii. , we read: "after { } these things came jesus and his disciples into the land of judæa." in the preceding chapter he is described as being at jerusalem. we have already said enough about the geographical notices of the author of the fourth gospel.( ) even those who do not admit that he was not a native of palestine are agreed that he wrote in another country and for foreigners. "the land of judæa," was therefore a natural expression superseding the necessity of giving a more minute local indication which would have been of little use. the second instance appealed to, though more doubtfully,( ) is heb. xiii. : "they from italy salute you." we are at a loss to understand how this is supposed to support the interpretation adopted. it is impossible that if paul went in and out with the apostles, preached boldly in jerusalem, and disputed with the hellenistic jews, not to speak of what is added, acts xxvi. f., he could say that he was unknown by face to the churches of judæa. there is nothing, we may remark, which limits his preaching to the grecian jews. whilst apologists maintain that the two accounts are reconcilable, many of them frankly admit that the account in acts requires correction from that in the epistle;( ) but, on the other hand, a still greater number of critics prouounce the narrative in the acts contradictory to the statements of paul.( ) { } there remains another point upon which a few remarks must be made. in acts ix. f. the cause of paul's hurriedly leaving jerusalem is a plot of the grecian jews to kill him. paul does not in the epistle refer to any such matter, but, in another part of the acts, paul is represented as relating, xxii. f.: "and it came to pass, that, when i returned to jerusalem and was praying in the temple, i was in a trance and saw him saying unto me: make haste, and get thee quickly out of jerusalem, for they will not receive thy witness concerning me," &c, &c. this account differs, therefore, even from the previous narrative in the same book, yet critics are agreed that the visit during which the apostle is said to have seen this vision was that which we are discussing.( ) the writer is so little a historian working from substantial facts that he forgets the details of his own previous statements; and in the account of the conversion of paul, for instance, he thrice repeats the story with emphatic and irreconcilable contradictions. we have already observed his partiality for visions, and such supernatural agency is so ordinary a matter with him that, in the first account of this visit, he altogether omits the vision, although he must have known of it then quite as much as on the second occasion. the apostle, in his authentic and solemn account of this visit, gives no hint of any vision, and leaves no suggestion even of that public preaching which is described in the earlier, and referred to in the later, narrative in the acts.( ) if we { } had no other grounds for rejecting the account as unhistorical this miraculous vision, added as an after-thought, would have warranted our doing so. passing on now to the second chapter of the epistle to the galatians, we find that paul writes:--"then, after fourteen years, again i went up to jerusalem..." [------]. he states the particulars of what took place upon the occasion of this second visit with a degree of minuteness which ought, one might have supposed, to have left no doubt of its identity, when compared with the same visit historically described elsewhere; but such are the discrepancies between the two accounts that, as we have already mentioned, the controversy upon the point has been long and active.( ) the acts, it will be remembered, relate a second visit of paul to jerusalem, after that which we have discussed, upon which occasion it is stated (xi. ) that he was sent with barnabas to convey to the community, during a time of famine, the contributions of the church of antioch. the third visit of the acts is that (xv.) when paul and barnabas are said to have been deputed to confer with the apostles regarding the { } conditions upon which gentile converts should be admitted into the christian brotherhood. the circumstances of this visit, more nearly than any other, correspond with those described by the apostle himself in the epistle (ii. ff.), but there are grave difficulties in the way of identifying them. if this visit be identical with that described acts xv., and if paul, as he states, paid no intermediate visit to jerusalem, what becomes of the visit interpolated in acts xi. ? the first point which we must endeavour to ascertain is exactly what the apostle intends to say regarding the second visit which he mentions. the purpose of paul is to declare his complete independence from those who were apostles before him, and to maintain that his gospel was not of man, but directly revealed to him by jesus christ. in order to prove his independence, therefore, he categorically states exactly what had been the extent of his intercourse with the elder apostles. he protests that, after his conversion, he had neither conferred with flesh and blood nor sought those who had been apostles before him, but, on the contrary, that he had immediately gone away to arabia. it was not until three years had elapsed that he had gone up to jerusalem, and then only to make the acquaintance of peter, with whom he had remained only fifteen days, during which he had not seen other of the apostles save james, the lord's brother. only after the lapse of fourteen years did he again go up to jerusalem. it is argued( ) that when paul says, "he went up again," [------], the word [------] has not the force of [------], and that, so far from excluding any intermediate journey, it merely signifies a { } repetition of what had been done before, and might have been used of any subsequent journey. even if this were so, it is impossible to deny that, read with its context, [------] is used in immediate connection with the former visit which we have just discussed. the sequence is distinctly marked by the [------] "then," and the adoption of the preposition [------]--which may properly be read "after the lapse of,"( )--instead of [------], seems clearly to indicate that no other journey to jerusalem had been made in the interval. this can be maintained linguistically; but the point is still more decidedly settled when the apostle's intention is considered. it is obvious that his purpose would have been totally defeated had he passed over in silence an intermediate visit. even if, as is argued, the. visit referred to in acts xi. had been of very brief duration, or if he had not upon that occasion had any intercourse with the apostles, it is impossible that he could have ignored it under the circumstances, for by so doing he would have left the retort in the power of his enemies that he had, on other occasions than those which he had enumerated, been in jerusalem and in contact with the apostles. the mere fact that a visit had been unmentioned would have exposed him to the charge of having suppressed it, and suspicion is always ready to assign unworthy motives. if paul had paid such a hasty visit as is suggested, he would naturally have mentioned the fact and stated the circumstances, whatever they were. these and other reasons convince the majority of critics that the apostle here enumerates all the visits which he had paid to jerusalem since his conversion.( ) the visit referred to in gal. ii. ff. { } must be considered the second occasion on which the apostle paul went to jerusalem. this being the case, can the visit be identified as the second visit described in acts xi. ? the object of that journey to jerusalem, it is expressly stated, was to carry to the brethren in jerusalem the contributions of the church of antioch during a time of famine; whereas paul explicitly says that he went up to jerusalem, on the occasion we are discussing, in consequence of a revelation, to communicate the gospel which he was preaching among the gentiles. there is not a word about contributions. on the other hand, chronologically it is impossible that the second visit of the epistle can be the second of the acts. there is some difference of opinion as to whether the fourteen years are to be calculated from the date of his conversion,( ) or from the previous journey.( ) the latter seems to be the more reasonable supposition, but in either case it is obvious that the identity is excluded. from various data,--the famine under claudius, and the time of herod agrippa's { } death,--the date of the journey referred to in acts xi. is assigned to about a.d. . if, therefore, we count back fourteen or seventeen years, we have as the date of the conversion, on the first hypothesis, a.d. , and on the second, a.d. , neither of which of course is tenable. in order to overcome this difficulty, critics( ) at one time proposed, against the unanimous evidence of mss., to read instead of [------] in gal. ii. , [------] "after four years;" but this violent remedy is not only generally rejected, but, even if admitted for the sake of argument, it could not establish the identity, inasmuch as the statements in gal. ii. ff. imply a much longer period of missionary activity amongst the gentiles than paul could possibly have had at that time, about which epoch, indeed, barnabas is said to have sought him in tarsus, apparently for the purpose of first commencing such a career;a certainly the account of his active ministry begins in the acts only in ch. xiii. then, it is not possible to suppose that, if such a dispute regarding circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision as is sketched in gal. ii. had taken place on a previous occasion, it could so soon be repeated, acts xv., and without any reference to the former transaction. comparatively few critics, therefore, have ventured to maintain that the second visit recorded in the epistle is the same as the second mentioned in the acts (xi. ), and in modern times the theory is almost entirely abandoned. if, therefore, it be admitted that paul mentions all the journeys which he had made to jerusalem up to the time at which he wrote, and that his second visit was not the second visit { } of the acts, but must be placed later, it follows clearly upon the apostle's own assurance that the visit mentioned in acts xi. , xii. , cannot have taken place and is unhistorical, and this is the conclusion of the majority of critics,( ) including many apologists, who, whilst suggesting that, for some reason, barnabas may alone have gone to jerusalem without paul, or otherwise deprecating any imputation of conscious inaccuracy to the author, still substantially confirm the result that paul did not on that occasion go to jerusalem, and consequently that the statement is not historical. on the other hand, it is suggested that the additional visit to jerusalem is inserted by the author with a view to conciliation, by representing that paul was in constant communication with the apostles and community of jerusalem, and that he acted with their approval and sympathy. it is scarcely possible to observe the peculiar variations between the narratives of the acts and of paul without feeling that the author of the former deliberately sacrifices the independence and individuality of the great apostle of the gentiles. the great mass of critics agree in declaring that the { } second visit described in the epistle is identical with the third recorded in the acts (xv.), although a wide difference of opinion exists amongst them as to the historical value of the account contained in the latter. this general agreement renders it unnecessary for us to enter at any length into the arguments which establish the identity, and we shall content ourselves with very concisely stating some of the chief reasons for this conclusion. the date in both cases corresponds, whilst there are insuperable chronological objections to identifying the second journey of the epistle with any earlier or later visit mentioned in acts. we have referred to other reasons against its being placed earlier than the third visit of acts, and there are still stronger objections to its being dated after the third. it is impossible, considering the object of the apostle, that he could have passed over in silence such a visit as that described acts xv., and the only alternative would be to date it later than the composition of the epistle, to which the narrative of the acts as well as all other known facts would be irreconcilably opposed. on the other hand, the date, the actors, the cause of dispute, and probably the place (antioch) in which that dispute originated, so closely correspond, that it is incredible that such a coincidence of circumstances should again have occurred. "without anticipating our comparison of the two accounts of this visit, we must here at least remark that the discrepancies are so great that not only have apologetic critics, as we have indicated, adopted the theory that the second visit of the epistle is not the same as the third of the acts, but is identical with the second (xi. ), of which so few particulars are given, but { } some, and notably wieseler,( ) have maintained it to have been the same as that described in acts xviii. ff., whilst paley and others( ) have been led to the hypothesis that the visit in question does not correspond with any of the visits actually recorded in the acts, but is one which is not referred to at all in that work. these { } theories have found very little favour, however, and we mention them solely to complete our statement of the general controversy. considering the fulness of the report of the visit in acts xv. and the peculiar nature of the facts stated by the apostle himself in his letter to the galatians, the difficulty of identifying the particular visit referred to is a phenomenon which cannot be too much considered. is it possible, if the narrative in the acts were really historically accurate, that any reasonable doubt could ever have existed as to its correspondence with the apostle's statements? we may here at once say that, although many of the critics who finally decide that the visit described in acts xv. is the same as that referred to in the second chapter of the epistle argue that the obvious discrepancies and contradictions between the two accounts may be sufficiently explained and reconciled, this is for very strong reasons disputed, and the narrative in the acts, when tested by the authentic statements of the apostle, pronounced inaccurate and unhistorical. it is only necessary to read the two accounts in order to understand the grounds upon which even apologists like paley and wieseler feel themselves compelled { } to suppose that the apostle is describing transactions which occurred during some visit either unmentioned or not fully related in the acts, rather than identify it with the visit reported in the fifteenth chapter, from which it so essentially differs. a material difference is not denied by any one, and explanations with a view to reconciliation have never been dispensed with. thiersch, who has nothing better than the usual apologetic explanations to offer, does not hesitate to avow the apparent incongruities of the two narratives. "the journey," he says, "is the same, but no human ingenuity can make out that also the conference and the decree resulting from it are the same."( ) of course he supposes that the problem is to be solved by asserting that the apostle speaks of the private, the historian of the public, circumstances of the visit. all who maintain the historical character of the acts must of course more or less thoroughly adopt this argument, but it is obvious that, in doing so, they admit on the one hand the general discrepancy, and on the other, if successful in establishing their position, they could do no more than show that the epistle does not absolutely exclude the account in the acts. both writers profess to describe events which occurred during the same visit; both record matters of the highest interest closely bearing on the same subject; yet the two accounts are so different from each other that they can only be rescued from complete antagonism by complete separation. supposing the author of the acts to be really acquainted with the occurrences of this visit, and to have intended to give a plain unvarnished account of them, the unconscious ingenuity with which he has omitted the important facts mentioned by paul and { } eliminated the whole of the apostle's individuality would indeed be as remarkable as it is unfortunate. but supposing the apostle paul to have been aware of the formal proceedings narrated in the acts, characterized by such unanimity and liberal christian feeling, it would be still more astonishing and unfortunate that he has not only silently passed them over, but has conveyed so singularly different an impression of his visit.( ) as the apostle certainly could not have been acquainted with the acts, his silence regarding the council and its momentous decree, as well as his ignorance of the unbroken harmony which prevailed are perfectly intelligible. he of course only knew and described what actually occurred. the author of the acts, however, might and must have known the epistle to the galatians, and the ingenuity with which the tone and details of the authentic report are avoided or transfigured cannot be ascribed to mere accident, but must largely be attributed to design, although also partly, it may be, to the ignorance and the pious imagination of a later age. is it possible, for instance, that the controversy regarding the circumcision of titus, and the dispute with peter at antioch, which are so prominently related in the epistle, but present a view so different from the narrative of acts, can have been undesignedly omitted? the violent apologetic reconciliation which is effected between the two accounts is based upon the foregone conclusion that the author of the canonical acts, however he may seem to deviate from the apostle, cannot possibly contradict him or be "our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of cross lights. the narratives of st. luke and st. paul only then cease to conflict, when we take into account the different positions of the writers and the different objects they had in view." lightfoot, st paul's ep. to the gal., p. . { } in error; but the preceding examination has rendered such a position untenable, and here we have not to do with a canonized "st. luke," but with an unknown writer whose work must be judged by the ordinary rules of criticism. according to the acts, a most serious question is raised at antioch. certain men from judaea came thither teaching: "except ye have been circumcised after the manner of moses ye cannot be saved." after much dissension and disputation the church of antioch appoint that paul and barnabas, "and certain others of them" shall go up to jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. the motive of the journey is here most distinctly and definitely described. paul is solemnly deputed by the church to lay before the mother church of jerusalem a difficult question, upon the answer to which turns the whole future of christianity. paul's account, however, gives a very different complexion to the visit:--"then, after fourteen years, i went up again to jerusalem with barnabas, taking titus also with me. but i went up according to revelation [------] and communicated to them the gospel which i preach among the gentiles," &c. paley might well say:--"this is not very reconcilable."( ) it is argued,( ) that the two { } statements may supplement each other; that the revelation may have been made to the church of antioch and have led to the mission; or that, being made to paul, it may have decided him to undertake it. if however, we admit that the essence of truth consists not in the mere letter but in the spirit of what is stated, it seems impossible to reconcile these accounts. it might be granted that a historian, giving a report of events which had occurred, might omit some secret motive actuating the conduct even of one of the principal persons with whom he has to do; but that the apostle, under the actual circumstances, and while protesting: "now the things which i am writing unto you, behold, before god, i lie not!" should altogether suppress the important official character of his journey to jerusalem, and give it the distinct colour of a visit voluntarily and independently made [------], is inconceivable. as we proceed, it will become apparent that the divergence between the two accounts is systematic and fundamental; but we may here so far anticipate as to point out that the apostle explicitly excludes an official visit not only by stating an "inward motive," and omitting all mention of a public object, but by the expression:--"and communicated to them the gospel which i preach among the gentiles, but privately to those who," &c. to quote paley's words: "if by 'that gospel,' he meant the immunity of the gentile christians from the jewish law (and i know not what else it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should communicate that privately, which was the subject of his public message;"( ) and { } we may add, how he should so absolutely alter the whole character of his visit. in the acts, he is an ambassador charged with a most important mission; in the epistle, he is paul the apostle, moved solely by his own reasons again to visit jerusalem. the author of the acts, however, who is supposed to record only the external circumstances, when tested is found to do so very imperfectly, for he omits all mention of titus, who is conjectured to be tacitly included in the "certain others of them," who were appointed by the church to accompany paul, and he is altogether silent regarding the strenuous effort to enforce the rite of circumcision in his case, upon which the apostle lays so much stress. the apostle, who throughout maintains his simply independent attitude, mentions his taking titus with him as a purely voluntary act, and certainly conveys no impression that he also was delegated by the church. we shall presently see how significant the suppression of titus is in connection with the author's transformation of the circumstances of the visit. in affirming that he went up "according to revelation," paul proceeds in the very spirit in which he began to write this epistle. he continues simply to assert his independence, and equality with the elder apostles. in speaking of his first journey he has this object in view, and he states precisely the duration of his visit and whom he saw. if he had suppressed the official character of this second visit and the fact that he submitted for the decision of the apostles and elders the question of the immunity of the gentile converts from circumcision, and thus curtly ascribed his going to a revelation, he would have compromised himself in a very serious manner, and exposed himself to a charge of disingenuousness of which his enemies would not have { } failed to take advantage. but, whether we consider the evidence of the apostle himself in speaking of this visit, the absence of all external allusion to the supposed proceedings when reference to them would have been not only most appropriate but was almost necessary, the practical contradiction of the whole narrative implied in the subsequent conduct of peter at antioch, or the inconsistency of the conduct attributed in it to paul himself, we are forced back to the natural conclusion that the apostle does not suppress anything, and does not give so absurdly partial an account of his visit as would be the case if the narrative in the acts be historical, but that, in a few rapid powerful lines, he completes a suggestive sketch of its chief characteristics. this becomes more apparent at every step we take in our comparison of the two narratives. if we pass on to the next stage of the proceedings, we find an equally striking divergence between the two writers, and it must not escape attention that the variations are not merely incidental but are thorough and consecutive. according to the acts, there was a solemn congress held in jerusalem, on which occasion the apostles and elders and the church being assembled, the question whether it was necessary that the gentiles should be circumcised and bound to keep the law of moses was fully discussed, and a formal resolution finally adopted by the meeting. the proceedings in fact constitute what has always been regarded as the first council of the christian church. the account in the epistle does not seem to betray any knowledge of such a congress.( ) the apostle himself says merely:--"but i { } went according to revelation and communicated to them [------] the gospel which i preach among the gentiles, but privately to them which seemed (to be something) [------]."( ) the usual apologetic explanation, as we have already mentioned, is that whilst more or less distinctly the author of acts indicates private conferences, and paul a public assembly, the former chiefly confines his attention to the general congress and the latter to the more private incidents of his visit.( ) the opinion that the author of acts "alludes in a general way to conferences and discussions preceding the congress,"( ) is based upon the statement xv. , : "and when they came to jerusalem they were received by the church and by the apostles and the elders, and declared all that god did with them. but there rose up certain of the sect of the pharisees, who believed, saying: that it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of moses. and the apostles and the elders came together to see regarding this matter. and when there had been much disputation, peter rose up and said," &c. if it were admitted that more than one meeting is here indicated, it is clear that the words cannot be legitimately strained into a reference to more { } than two conferences. the first of these is a general meeting of the apostles and elders and of the church to receive the delegates from antioch, and the second is an equally general and public conference (verse ): not only are the apostles and elders present but also the general body of christians, as clearly appears from the statement (ver. ) that, after the speech of peter, "all the multitude [------] kept silence."(l) the "much disputation" evidently takes place on the occasion when the apostles and elders are gathered together to consider the matter. if, therefore, two meetings can be maintained from the narrative in acts, both are emphatically public and general, and neither, therefore, the private conference of the epistle. the main fact that the author of the acts describes a general congress of the church as taking place is never called in question. on the other hand, few who appreciate the nature of the discrepancy which we are discussing will feel that the difficulty is solved by suggesting that there is space for the insertion of other incidents in the apostle's narrative. it is rather late now to interpolate a general council of the church into the pauses of the galatian letter. to suppose that the communications of paul to the "pillar" apostles, and the distressing debate regarding the circumcision of titus, may be inferred between the lines of the account in the acts, is a bold effort of imagination; but it is far from being as hopeless as an attempt to reconcile the discrepancy by thrusting the important public congress into some corner of the { } apostle's statement. in so far as any argument is advanced in support of the assertion that paul's expression implies something more than the private conference, it is based upon the reference intended in the words [------]. when paul says he went up to jerusalem and communicated "to them" his gospel, but privately [------], whom does he mean to indicate by the [------]? does he refer to the christian community of jerusalem, or to the apostles themselves? it is pretty generally admitted that either application is permissible; but whilst a majority of apologetic, together with some independent, critics adopt the former,( ) not a few consider, as chrysostom, oecumenius, and calvin did before them, that paul more probably referred to the apostles.( ) in favour of the former there is the fact, it is argued, that the [------] is used immediately after the statement that the apostle went up "to jerusalem," and that it may be more natural to conclude that he speaks of the christians there, more especially as he seems to distinguish between the communication made [------] and [------];( ) and, in support of this, "they" { } in gal. i. , , is, though we think without propriety, referred to. it is, on the other hand, urged that it is very unlikely that the apostle would in such a way communicate his gospel to the whole community, and that in the expressions used he indicates no special transaction, but that the [------] is merely an indefinite statement for which he immediately substitutes the more precise [------]( ) it is quite certain that there is no mention of the christian community of jerusalem to which the [------] can with any real grammatical necessity be referred; but when the whole purport of the first part of the apostle's letter is considered the reference to the apostles in the [------] becomes clearer. paul is protesting the independence of his gospel, and that he did not receive it from man but from jesus christ. he wishes to show that he was not taught by the apostles nor dependent upon them. he states that after his conversion he did not go to those who were apostles before him, but, on the contrary, went away to arabia, and only three years after he went up to jerusalem, and then only for the purpose of making the acquaintance of peter, and on that occasion other of the apostles saw he none save james the lord's brother. after fourteen years, he continues to recount, he again went up to jerusalem, but according to revelation, and communicated to them, i.e. to the apostles, the gospel which he preached among the gentiles. the apostles { } have been in the writer's mind throughout, but in the impetuous flow of his ideas, which in the first two chapters of this epistle outrun the pen, the sentences become involved. it must be admitted, finally, that the reference intended is a matter of opinion and cannot be authoritatively settled. if we suppose it to refer to the community of jerusalem, taking thus the more favourable construction, how would this affect the question? can it be maintained that in this casual and indefinite "to them" we have any confirmation of the general congress of the acts, with its debates, its solemn settlement of that momentous proposition regarding the gentile christians, and its important decree? it is impossible to credit that, in saying that he "communicated to them" the gospel which he preached amongst the gentiles, the apostle referred to a council like that described in the acts, to which, as a delegate from the church of antioch, he submitted the question of the conditions upon which the gentiles were to be admitted into the church, and tacitly accepted their decision.( ) even if it be assumed that the apostle makes this slight passing allusion to some meeting different from his conference with the pillar apostles, it could not have been a general congress assembled for the purpose stated in the acts and characterised by such proceedings. the discrepancy between the two narratives is not lessened by any supposed indication either in the epistle or in the acts of other incidents than those actually described. the suggestion that the dispute about titus involved some { } publicity does not avail, for the greater the publicity and importance of the episode the greater the difficulty of explaining the total silence regarding it of the author of acts. the more closely the two statements are compared the more apparent does it become that the author describes proceedings which are totally different in general character, in details, and in spirit, from those so vividly sketched by the apostle paul. we shall have more to say presently regarding the irreconcilable contradiction in spirit between the whole account which is given in the acts of this council and the writings of paul; but it may be more convenient, if less effective, if we for the present take the chief points in the narrative as they arise and consider how far they are supported or discredited by other data. we shall refer later to the manner in which the question which leads to the council is represented as arising and at once proceed to the speech of peter. after there had been much disputation as to whether the gentile christians must necessarily be circumcised and required to observe the mosaic law, it is stated that peter rose up and said: xv. . "men (and) brethren, ye know that a good while ago god made choice among you that the gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. . and god which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the holy spirit even as unto us; . and put no distinction between us and them, having purified their hearts by the faith. . now, therefore, why tempt ye god, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? . but by the grace of our lord jesus we believe we are saved even as also they."( ) { } the liberality of the sentiments thus put into the mouth of peter requires no demonstration, and there is here an explicit expression of convictions, which we must, from his own words, consider to be the permanent and mature views of the apostle, dating as they do "from ancient days" [------] and originating in so striking and supernatural a manner. we may, therefore, expect that whenever we meet with an authentic record of peter's opinions and conduct elsewhere, they should exhibit the impress of such advanced and divinely imparted views. the statement which peter makes: that god had a good while before selected him that the gentiles by his voice should hear the gospel, is of course a reference to the case of cornelius, and this unites the fortunes of the speech and proceedings of the council with that episode. we have seen how little ground there is for considering that narrative, with its elaborate tissue of miracles, historical. the speech which adopts it is thus discredited, and all other circumstances confirm the conclusion that the speech is not authentic.( ) if the name of peter were erased and that of paul substituted, the sentiments expressed would be singularly appropriate. we should have the { } divinely appointed apostle of the gentiles advocating complete immunity from the mosaic law, and enunciating pauline principles in peculiarly pauline terms. when peter declares that "god put no distinction between us (jews) and them (gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith,( ) but by the grace [------] of our lord jesus christ we believe we are saved even as also they," do we not hear paul's sentiments, so elaborately expressed in the epistle to the romans and elsewhere? "for there is no difference between jew and greek; for the same lord of all is rich unto all that call upon him. for whosoever shall call upon the name of the lord shall be saved"( ).... "justified freely by his grace [------] through the redemption that is in christ jesus."( ) and when peter exclaims: "why tempt ye god to put a yoke [------] upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" have we not rather a paraphrase of the words in the epistle to the galatians? "with liberty christ made us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke [------] of bondage. behold, i paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised christ will profit you nothing. but i testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law.( )... for as many as are of works of law are under a curse," &c( ) these are only a few sentences of which the speech in acts is an echo, but no attentive reader can fail to perceive that it contains in germ the whole of pauline universalism. { } from the pauline author of the acts this might fairly be expected, and if we linguistically examine the speech, we have additional evidence that it is simply, like others which we have considered, a composition from his own pen. we shall, as briefly as possible, refer to every word which is not of too common occurrence to require notice, and point out where they are elsewhere used. the opening [------] occurs elsewhere in the acts times, as we have already pointed out, being the favourite phrase placed in the mouth of all speakers; [------], x. , xviii. , xix. , , xx. , xxii. , xxiv. , xxvi. , , and elsewhere only times. the phrase [------] at the beginning of a sentence has been pointed out, in connection with a similar way of expressing the personal pronoun in x. , [------], and [------], as consequently characteristic of peter, and considered "important as showing that these reports are not only according to the _sense_ of what was said, but the words spoken, _verbatim_."( ) this is to overlook the fact that the very same words are put into the mouth of paul. peter commences his speech, xv. : [------] paul begins his speech at miletus, xx. : [------]; and at ephesus, demetrius the silversmith commences his address, xix. : [------] cf. xxiii. . [------], xv. , xxi. ; luke ix. , ; elsewhere times; the expression [------] does not elsewhere occur in the new testament, but [------] is common in the septuagint. cf. ps. xliii. , lxxvi. , cxlii. , isaiah xxxvii. , lament, i. , ii. , &c, &c. [------], i. , , vi. , xiii. , xv. , ; luke { } times, elsewhere times, and of these the following with inf., act* i. f., xv. , , ephes. l . with the phrase [------]( ) may be compared that of paul, xiii. ,[------], and cor. i. , in which [------] occurs twice, as well as again in the next verse, . [------] i. , in. , ; iv. ; luke i. ; and the whole phrase [------], may be compared with the words put into paul's mouth, xxii. : [------] xx. , in paul's epistles ( ) times, and elsewhere times. verse . [------] only occurs here and in i. , [------] where it forms part of the prayer at the election of the successor to judas. we have fully examined the speech of peter, i. ffi, and shown its unhistorical character, and that it is a free composition by the author of the acts; the prayer of the assembly is not ascribed to peter in the work itself, though apologists, grasping at the [------], assert that it must have been delivered by that apostle; but, with the preceding speech, the prayer also must be attributed to the pen of the author; and if it be maintained that peter spoke in the aramaic tongue( ) it is useless to discuss the word at all, which of course in that case must be allowed to belong to the author. [------], acts - times, luke , rest frequently; with the phrase [------] may be compared paul's words in xiii. , [------]. verse , [------], x. , xi. , , paul times, &c { } [------], xii. , xiii. ; luke xi. , xvi. ; rest times. [------], acts times, luke , paul , rest times; re... [------]acts times, luke , paul , rest times--[------] is clearly characteristic of the author, [------], acts , luke times, rest very frequently. [------], x. , xi. ; luke , and elsewhere times, [------], x. , xvi. , xxiii. ; an expression not found elsewhere in the new testament, and which is also indicative of the author's composition. verse , [------], v. , xvi. , xxiv. ; luke iv. , xi. , xx. , rest frequently; the question of jesus in luke and the parallel passages, [------]; will occur to every one. [------], acts , luke times, the rest frequently. [------] does not occur elsewhere, either in the acts or third gospel, but it is used precisely in the same sense by paul, gal. v. , in a passage to which we have called attention a few pages back( ) in connection with this speech. [------], xx. , luke xv. , xvii. ; romans xvi. , matth. xviii. , mark ix. ; [------] occurs times, [------], vi. , xix. , , xxv. , xxvii. ; luke times and elsewhere times. [------], iii. , ix. , xxi. ; luke , paul , rest times. verse , [------] acts ? times, luke , paul times, rest frequently. [------], acts , luke times, rest frequently. [------], acts , luke times, rest frequently, [------], is also put into the mouth of paul, xxvii. , and is not elsewhere found in the new testament; [------], i. , vii. ; luke xiii. ; matth. xxiii. , tim. iii. . [------], v. , xviii. ; luke xi. , , xx. , xxii. and elsewhere in the new testament times. it cannot be doubted that the language of this speech is that of the author of the acts, and no serious attempt has ever { } been made to show that it is the language of peter. if it be asserted that, in the form before us, it is a translation, there is not the slightest evidence to support the assertion; and it has to contend with the unfortunate circumstance that, in the supposed process, the words of peter have not only become the words of the author, but his thoughts the thoughts of paul. we may now inquire whether we find in authentic records of the apostle peter's conduct and views any confirmation of the liberality which is attributed to him in the acts. he is here represented as proposing the emancipation of gentile converts from the mosaic law: does this accord with the statements of the apostle paul and with such information as we can elsewhere gather regarding peter? very much the contrary. peter in this speech claims that, long before, god had selected him to make known the gospel to the gentiles, but paul emphatically distinguishes him as the apostle of the circumcision; and although, accepting facts which had actually taken place and could not be prevented, peter with james and john gave paul right hands of fellowship, he remained, as he had been before, apostle of the circumcision( ) and, as we shall see. did not practise the liberality which he is said to have preached. very shortly after the council described in the acts, there occurred the celebrated dispute between him and paul which the latter proceeds to describe immediately after the visit to jerusalem: "but when cephas came to antioch," he writes, "i withstood him to the face, for he was condemned. for before certain came from james, he did eat with the gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, { } fearing those of the circumcision. and the other jews also joined in his hypocrisy, insomuch that even barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. but when i saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, i said unto cephas before all: if thou being a jew livest [------] after the manner of gentiles and not after the manner of jews, how compellest [------] thou the gentiles to adopt the customs of the jews? [------]"( ) it is necessary to say a few words as to the significance of peter's conduct and of paul's rebuke, regarding which there is some difference of opinion.( ) are we to understand from this that peter, as a general rule, at antioch and elsewhere, with enlightened emancipation from jewish prejudices, lived as a gentile and in full communion with gentile christians?( ) meyer( ) and others argue that by the use of the present [------], the apostle indicates a continuous practice based upon principle, and that the [------] is not the mere moral life, but includes the external social observances of christian community: the object, in fact, being to show that upon principle peter held the advanced liberal views of paul, and that the fault which he committed in withdrawing from free intercourse with the gentile christians was momentary, and merely the result of "occasional timidity and weakness." this theory cannot bear the test of examination. the account of paul is clearly this: _when cephas came to antioch_, the { } stronghold of gentile christianity, _before certain men came from james_, he ate with the gentiles, but as soon as these emissaries arrived he withdrew, "fearing those of the circumcision." had his normal custom been to live like the gentiles, how is it possible that he could, on this occasion only, have feared those of the circumcision? his practice must have been notorious; and had he, moreover, actually expressed such opinions in the congress of jerusalem, his confession of faith having been so publicly made, and so unanimously approved by the church, there could not have been any conceivable cause for such timidity. the fact evidently is, on the contrary, that peter, under the influence of paul, was induced for the time to hold free communion with the gentile christians; but as soon as the emissaries of james appeared on the scene, he became alarmed at this departure from his principles, and fell back again into his normal practice. if the present [------] be taken to indicate continuous habit of life, the present [------] very much more than neutralizes it. paul with his usual uncompromising frankness rebukes the vacillation of peter: by adopting even for a time fellowship with the gentiles, peter has practically recognised its validity, has been guilty of hypocrisy in withdrawing from his concession on the arrival of the followers of james, and is condemned; but after such a concession he cannot legitimately demand that gentile converts should "judaize." it is obvious that whilst peter lived as a gentile, he could not have been compelling the gentiles to adopt judaism. paul, therefore, in saying: "why compellest thou [------] the gentiles to adopt the customs of the jews? [------]," very distinctly intimates that the normal practice of peter was to compel { } gentile christians to adopt judaism. there is no escaping this conclusion for, after all specious reasoning to the contrary is exhausted, there remains the simple fact that peter, when placed in a dilemma on the arrival of the emissaries of james, and forced to decide whether he will continue to live as a gentile or as a jew, adopts the latter alternative, and as paul tells us "compels" (in the present) the gentiles to judaize. a stronger indication of his views could scarcely have been given. not a word is said which implies that peter yielded to the vehement protests of paul, but on the contrary we must undoubtedly conclude that he did not; for it is impossible to suppose that paul would not have stated a fact so pertinent to his argument, had the elder apostle been induced by his remonstrance to walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel which paul preached, and both to teach and practice christian universalism. we shall have abundant reason, apart from this, to conclude that peter did not yield, and it is no false indication of this, that, a century after, we find the clementine homilies expressing the bitterness of the petrine party against the apostle of the gentiles for this very rebuke, and representing peter as following his course from city to city for the purpose of refuting paul's unorthodox teaching. it is contended that peter's conduct at antioch is in harmony with his denial of his master related in the gospels, and, therefore, that such momentary and characteristic weakness might well have been displayed even after his adoption of liberal principles. those who argue in this way, however, forget that the denial of jesus, as described in the gospels, proceeded from the fear of death, and that such a reply to a merely compromising question { } which did not directly involve principles, is a very different thing from conduct like that at antioch where, under one influence, a line of action was temporarily adopted which ratified views upon which the opinion of the church was divided, and then abandoned merely from fear of the disapproval of those of the circumcision. the author of the acts passes over this altercation in complete silence. no one has ever called in question the authenticity of the account which paul gives of it. if peter had the courage to make such a speech at the council in the very capital of judaic christianity, and in the presence of james and the whole church, how could he possibly, from fear of a few men from jerusalem, have shown such pusillanimity in antioch, where paul and the mass of christians supported him? if the unanimous decision of the council had really been a fact, how easily he might have silenced any objections by an appeal to that which had "seemed good to the holy spirit" and to the church! but there is not the slightest knowledge of the council and its decree betrayed either by those who came from james, or by peter, or paul. the episode at antioch is inconsistent with the conduct and words ascribed to peter in the acts, and contradicts the narrative in the fifteenth chapter which we are examining.( ) the author of the acts states that after peter had spoken, "all the multitude kept silence and were hearing { } barnabas and paul declaring what signs and wonders god had wrought among the gentiles by them."( ) we shall not at present pause to consider this statement, nor the _rôle_ which paul is made to play in the whole transaction, beyond pointing out that, on an occasion when such a subject as the circumcision of the gentiles and their subjection to the mosaic law was being discussed, nothing could be more opposed to nature than to suppose that a man like the author of the epistle to the galatians could have assumed so passive, and subordinate an attitude.( ) after barnabas and paul had spoken, james is represented as saying: "men (and) brethren, hear me. simeon declared how god at first did visit the gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. and with this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written: 'after this i will return, and will build again the tabernacle of david which has fallen down; and i will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the lord, and all the gentiles, upon whom my name has been called, saith the lord who doeth these things, known from the beginning.' wherefore, i judge that we trouble not those from among the gentiles who are turning to god; but that we write unto them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. for moses from generations of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath."( ) there are many reasons for which this { } speech also must be pronounced inauthentic.( ) it may be observed, in passing, that james completely disregards the statement which barnabas and paul are supposed to make as to what god had wrought by them among the gentiles; and, ignoring their intervention, he directly refers to the preceding speech of peter claiming to have first been selected to convert the gentiles. we shall reserve discussion of the conditions which james proposes to impose upon gentile christians till we come to the apostolic decree which embodies them. the precise signification of the sentence with which (ver. ) he concludes has been much debated, but need not detain us long. whatever may be said of the liberal part of the speech it is obvious that the author has been more true to the spirit of the time in conceiving this and other portions of it, than in composing the speech of peter. the continued observance of the mosaic ritual, and the identity of the synagogue with the christian church are correctly indicated; and when james is again represented (xxi. ff.) as advising paul to join those who had avow, in order to prove that he himself walked orderly and was an observer of the law, and did not teach the jews to apostatize from moses and abandon the rite of circumcision, he is consistent in his portrait it is nevertheless clear that, however we may read the restrictions which { } james proposes to impose upon gentile christians, the author of acts intends them to be considered as a most liberal and almost complete concession of immunity. "i judge," he makes james say, "that we trouble not those from among the gentiles who are turning to god;" and again, on the second occasion of which we have just been speaking, in referring to the decree, a contrast is drawn between the christian jews, from whom observance of the law is demanded, and the gentiles, who are only expected to follow the prescriptions of the decree. james is represented as supporting the statement of peter how god visited the gentiles by "the words of the prophets," quoting a passage from amos. ix. , . it is difficult to see how the words, even as quoted, apply to the case at all, but this is immaterial. loose reasoning can certainly not be taken as a mark of inauthenticity. it is much more to the point that james, addressing an assembly of apostles and elders in jerusalem, quotes the prophet amos freely from the septuagint version,( ) which differs widely in the latter and more important part from the hebrew text.( ) the passage in the hebrew reads: ix. . "in that day will i raise up the tabernacle of david that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and i will raise up his ruins, and i will build it as in the days of old, . that they may possess the remnant of { } edom, and of all the heathen upon whom my name is called, saith the lord that doeth this." the authors of the septuagint version altered the twelfth verse into: "that the residue of men may seek after the lord and all the gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the lord who doeth these things."( ) it is perfectly clear that the prophet does not, in the original, say what james is here represented as stating, and that his own words refer to the national triumph of israel, and not to the conversion of the gentiles. amos in fact prophesies that the lord will restore the former power and glory of israel, and that the remnant of edom and the other nations of the theocracy shall be re-united, as they were under david. no one questions the fact that the original prophecy is altered, and those who desire to see the singular explanations of apologists may refer to some of the works indicated.( ) the question as to whether james or the author of the acts is responsible for the adoption of the septuagint version is felt to be a serious problem. some critics affirm that in all probability james must have spoken in aramaic;( ) whilst others maintain that he delivered this { } address in greek.( ) in the one case, it is supposed that he quoted the original hebrew and that the author of the acts or the document from which he derived his report may have used the septuagint; and in the other, it is suggested that the lxx. may have had another and more correct reading before them, for it is supposed impossible that james himself could have quoted a version which was actually different from the original hebrew. these and many other similar explanations, into which we need not go, do little to remove the difficulty presented by the fact itself. to suppose that our hebrew texts are erroneous in order to justify the speech is a proceeding which does not require remark. it will be remembered that, in the acts, the septuagint is always employed in quotations from the old testament, and that this is by no means the only place in which that version is used when it departs from the original. it is difficult to conceive that any intelligent jew could have quoted the hebrew of this passage to support a proposal to free gentile christians from the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the mosaic law. it is equally difficult to suppose that james, a bigoted leader of the judaistic party and the head of the church of jerusalem, could have quoted the septuagint version of the holy scriptures, differing from the hebrew, to such an assembly. it is useless to examine here the attempts to make the passage quoted a correct interpretation of the prophet's meaning, or seriously to consider the proposition that this alteration of a prophetic utterance is adopted as better { } expressing "the mind of the spirit." if the original prophecy did not express that mind, it is rather late to amend the utterances of the prophets in the acts of the apostles. we may now briefly examine the speech linguistically. verse : the opening as usual is [------], but the whole phrase [------] is put into the mouth of paul in xxii. , [------], and with but little variation again in xiii. . cf. ii. . the use of the hebrew form [------] in speaking of peter, has been pointed out by bleek( ) and others, after lightfoot,( ) as a characteristic peculiarity showing the authenticity of the speech. the same form occurs in pet. i. , but its use in that spurious epistle is scarcely calculated to give weight to its use here. if it be characteristic of anyone, however, its use is characteristic of the author of the third gospel and the acts, and in no case is it peculiarly associated with james. in addition to the instance referred to above, and apoc. vii. , where the tribe of simeon is thus named, the jewish form [------] of the name simon occurs four times only in the new testament, and they are conflned to our author: acts xiii. ; luke ii. , , iii. . being acquainted with the jewish form of the name, he made use of it in this speech probably for the effect of local colouring. [------], xv. , xxi. ; luke xxiv. , and nowhere else except john i. --it is peculiar to the author, [------], acts , luke times, and elsewhere frequently, [------], iii. , vii. , xi. , xiii. , xxvi. ; luke times; jam. iii. ; paul times, rest frequently. [------], vi. , vii. , xv. ; luke i. , { } , vii. ; matth. xxv. , , hebr. ii. , jam. i. , that is to say times used by the author and only times in the rest of the new testament; compare especially luke i. , and vii. . [------] opposed to [------], xxvi. , . the expression [------] occurs ii. , iv. , , v. , ; luke ix. , , xxi. , xxiv. , and only times in the rest of the new testament. verse : [------], v. ; luke v. , and matth. xviii. , xx. , only. verse : in this quotation from amos, for the i[------] of the septuagint, the author substitutes [------], which phrase occurs elsewhere in acts vii. , xiii. , xviii. ; luke v. , x. , xii. , xvii. , xviii. . [------], v. and times elsewhere. verse : [------], i. , ii. , iv. , , ix. , xiii. , xix. , xxviii. , = times in acts; luke i. , xxiii. ; elsewhere only in rom. i. , john xviii. , ,--a characteristic word. so likewise is the expression [------], iii. , luke i. ; [------] occurs in ephes. iii. , col. i. . these words are added to the passage quoted from the septuagint. verse : [------] is used times in acts; luke i. , vii. ; by paul times, ep. jam. twice, and elsewhere times. [------], times in acts; luke times, paul times, ep. jam. , and elsewhere times, [------] is not found elsewhere in the new testament. [------], acts , luke , jam. v. , , rest times; the phrase [------] is a favourite and characteristic expression of the author, who uses it ix. , xi. , xiv. , xxvi. , and luke i. , and it does not occur elsewhere in the new testament except in pet. ii. . verse : [------], xxi. , and hebr. xiii. only. [------] xv. , luke vi. , vii. , xv. , xxiv. , thess. iv. , v. , tim. iv. , pet. ii. , and { } elsewhere times; in both passages of the ep. to the thess. it is used with [------] as here. [------] is not elsewhere found. [------], vii. ; times by paul, and elsewhere : it occurs very frequently in the septuagint. [------], xv. , xxi. ; paul , elsewhere times. [------], xv. , xxi. , a technical word. [------], acts , luke times, rest frequently, [------], ii. , viii. , xiii. , xiv. ; luke times, matth. , mk. , rest times. [------], xv. , xxi. ; luke ix. , , elsewhere times. [------], xv. , xx. , xxiv. ; luke viii. , , xiii. , and elsewhere only in tit. i. . [------], viii. , ix. , x. , , xix. , xx. , xxviii. ; luke , paul , elsewhere times. [------], acts , luke , rest times, the whole phrase [------] occurs again in the acts, being put into the mouth of paul xiii. , and [------] being used by the writer in xviii. . [------], acts ; luke , rest times, [------], viii. , twice, , xiii. , xv. , xxiii. ; luke , and elsewhere times. this analysis confirms the conclusion that the speech of james at the council proceeds likewise from the pen of the general author, and the incomprehensible liberality of the sentiments expressed, as well as the peculiarity of the quotation from amos according to the septuagint, thus receive at once their simple explanation. if we now compare the account of james's share in granting liberal conditions to gentile christians with the statements of paul, we arrive at the same result. it is in consequence of the arrival of "certain men from james" [------] that peter through fear of them withdrew from communion with the { } gentiles. it will be remembered that the whole discussion is said to have arisen in antioch originally from the judaistic teaching of certain men who came "from judæa," who are disowned in the apostolic letter.( ) it is unfortunate, however, to say the least of it, that so many of those who systematically opposed the work of the apostle paul claimed to represent the views of james and the mother church.( ) the contradiction of the author of the acts, with his object of conciliation, has but small weight before the statements of paul and the whole voice of tradition. at any rate, almost immediately after the so-called apostolic council, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of james, his emissaries caused the defection of peter in antioch and the rupture with paul. it is generally admitted, in the face of the clear affirmation of paul, that the men in question must in all probability have been actually sent by james. it is obvious that, to justify the fear of so leading an apostle as peter, not only must they have been thus deputed, but must have been influential men, "of the judaizers who are denounced in st. paul's epistles this much is certain, that they exalted the authority of the apostles of the circumcision; and that, in some instances at least, as members of the mother church, they had direct relations with james, the lord's brother. but when we attempt to define those relations, we are lost in a maze of conjecture." lightfoot, ep. to the gal., p. . { } representing authoritative and prevalent judaistic opinions. we shall not attempt to divine the object of their mission, but we may say that it is impossible to separate them from the judaistic teachers who urged circumcision upon the galatian christians and opposed the authority of the apostle paul. not pursuing this further at present, however, it is obvious that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite incompatible with the narrative that, so short a time before, james and the church of jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions, under which the gentile christians were freely admitted into communion, and which fully justified peter in eating with them. the incident at antioch, as connected with james as well as with peter, excludes the supposition that the account of the council contained in the acts can be considered historical. the apostolic letter embodying the decree of the council now demands our attention. it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church to choose two leading men among the brethren, and to send them to antioch with paul and barnabas, and they wrote by them (xv. ):--"the apostles and brethren which are elders unto the brethren which are of the gentiles in antioch and syria and cilicia, greeting. . forasmuch as we heard that certain which went out from us troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment, . it seemed good unto us, having become of one mind, to choose out and send men unto you with our beloved barnabas and paul, . men that have given up their lives for the name of our lord jesus christ. . we have, therefore, sent judas and silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth. . for it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary { } things: . that ye abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. fare ye well." l it is argued that the simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of hierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and originality of the epistle. nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to assert that the author of the acts, composing a letter supposed to be written under the circumstances, would have written one different from this. we shall, on the contrary, see good reason for affirming that he actually did compose it, and that it bears the obvious impress of his style. besides, zeller( ) has pointed out that, in a document affirmed to be so removed from all calculation or object, verse could hardly have found a place. the reference to "our beloved" barnabas and paul, as "men that have given up their lives for the name of our lord jesus christ," is scarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which are made the basis of such an argument. in the absence of better evidence, apologists grasp at extremely slight indications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us the mark of genuineness which bleek and others( ) consider that they find in the fact, { } that the name of barnabas is placed before that of paul in this document. it is maintained that, from the th chapter, the author commences to give the precedence to paul, but that, in reverting to the former order, the synodal letter gives evidence both of its antiquity and genuineness. if any weight could be attached to such an indication, it is unfortunate for this argument that the facts are not as stated, for the order "barnabas and paul" occurs at xiv. and , and even in the very account of the council at xv. . the two names are mentioned together in the acts sixteen times, barnabas being named first eight times (xi. , xii. , xiii. , , , xiv. , , xv. ), and paul as frequently (xiii. , , , xv. twice, , , ). apologists like lekebusch( ) and oertel( ) reject bleek's argument. the greeting [------] with which the letter opens, and which, amongst the epistles of the new testament, is only found in that bearing the name of james (i. ), is said to be an indication that the letter of the council was written by james himself.( ) before such an argument could avail, it would be necessary, though difficult, to prove the authenticity of the epistle of james, but we need not enter upon such a question. [------] is the ordinary greek form of greeting in all epistles,( ) and the author of acts, who writes purer greek than any { } other writer in our canon, naturally adopts it. not only does he do so here, however, but he makes use of the same [------] in the letter of the chief captain lysias (xxiii. ),( ) which also evidently proceeds from his hand. moreover, the word is used as a greeting in luke i. , and not unfrequently elsewhere in the new testament, as mattli. xxvi. , xxvii. , xxviii. , mark xv. , john xix. , john , . lekebusch,( ) meyer,( ) and oertel( ) reject the argument, and we may add that if [------] prove anything, it proves that the author of acts, who uses the word in the letter of lysias, also wrote the synodal letter. in what language must we suppose that the epistle was originally written? oertel maintains an aramaic original,( ) but the greater number of writers consider that the original language was greek.( ) it cannot be denied that the composition, as it stands, contains many of the peculiarities of style of the author of acts;( ) and these are, indeed, so marked that even apologists like lekebusch and oertel, whilst maintaining the substantial authenticity of the epistle, admit that at least its actual form must be ascribed to the general author. the originality of the form being abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any ground for asserting the originality and genuineness of { } the substance. that assertion rests solely upon a vague traditional confidence in the author of acts, which is shown to be without any solid foundation. the form of this epistle clearly professes to be as genuine as the substance, and if the original language was greek, there is absolutely no reason why the original letter should have been altered. the similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third gospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed to have beeu most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:-- [------] a more detailed linguistic examination of the epistle, however, confirms the conclusion already stated. verse : [------], ii. , v. , vii. , xi. , xiv. , xix. , , and elsewhere the expression is only met with in mark vi. ; the phrase [------] finds a parallel in xi. , [------], k. t. x. the characteristic expression [------], is repeated, xi. , xvi. , xxvii. , , . verse : [------], xiii. , xiv. , luke vii. , xi. , cf. i. ; paul , rest only times. [------], xvii. , , luke i. , xxiv. , elsewhere thirteen times. [------] is not found elsewhere, but the preference of our writer for compounds of [------], and [------] is marked, and of these consists a large proportion of his [------], acts , luke times, and frequently elsewhere; the phrase [------], may be compared with xiv. , [------], cf. xiv. . [------] { } not elsewhere found in acts, but it occurs matth. xvi. , mark v. , vii. twice, viii. , ix. , and heb. xii. . verse : [------], acts , luke , paul times, elsewhere frequently. [------], i. , ii. , , iv. , v. , xii. , viii. , xii. , xviii. , xix. ; so that this word, not in very common use even in general greek literature, occurs times elsewhere in the acts, but, except in rom. xv. , is not employed by any other new testament writer. [------], i. , , vi. , xiii. , xv. , , luke vi. , x. , xiv. , and elsewhere times, [------], acts , luke times, elsewhere common, [------] is not elsewhere used in acts, but is found in luke iii. , ix. , xx. , paul times, and is common elsewhere. verse : [------], acts , luke times, and common elsewhere, [------], xxi. , v. , ix. , rom. i. , john . verse : [------], acts , luke times, elsewhere very frequently. [------], xv. . [------], acts , luke , rest times, [------], luke vi. , ; [------], acts i. , ii. , , iii. , iv. , xiv. ; luke vi. , xvii. . verse : [------], acts , luke , paul , elsewhere times; the same expression, [------]... is also found in luke iii. . [------], acts , luke , elsewhere times. [------] is not elsewhere met with in acts, but occurs matt. xx. , cor. iv. , gal. vi. , thes. il , apoc. ii. . [------], viii. , xx. , xxvii. , luke , elsewhere times. [------] is not elsewhere found in the new testament. verse : [------], xv. , luke vi. , vii. , xv. , xxiv. , elsewhere times. [------], xxi. , cor. viii. , , , , x. , , apoc. ii. , . [------] occurs only in luke ii. . [------], acts , luke , paul , elsewhere times only, [------], this { } usual greek formula for the ending of a letter, [------], is nowhere else used in the new testament, except at the close of the letter of lysias, xxiii. . turning now from the letter to the spirit of this decree, we must endeavour to form some idea of its purport and bearing. the first point which should be made clear is, that the question raised before the council solely affected the gentile converts, and that the conditions contained in the decree were imposed upon that branch of the church alone. no change whatever in the position of jewish christians was contemplated; they were left as before, subject to the mosaic law.( ) this is very apparent in the reference which is made long after to the decree, ch. xxi. ff., , when the desire is expressed to paul by james, who proposed the decree, and the elders of jerusalem, that he should prove to the many thousands of believing jews all zealous of the law, that he did not teach the jews who were among the gentiles apostasy from moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. paul, who is likewise represented, in the acts, as circumcising with his own hand, after the decision of the council had been adopted, timothy the son of a greek, whose mother was a jewess, consents to give the jews of jerusalem the required proof. we have already shown at the commencement of this section, that { } nothing was further from the minds of the jewish christians than the supposition that the obligation to observe the mosaic law was weakened by the adoption of christianity; and the representation in the acts is certainly so far correct, that it does not pretend that jewish christians either desired or sanctioned any relaxation of mosaic observances on the part of believing jews. this cannot be too distinctly remembered in considering the history of primitive christianity. the initiatory rite was essential to full participation in the covenant. it was left for paul to preach the abrogation of the law and the abandonment of circumcision. if the speech of peter seems to suggest the abrogation of the law even for jews, it is only in a way which shows that the author had no clear historical fact to relate, and merely desired to ascribe, vaguely and indefinitely, pauline sentiments to the apostle of the circumcision. no remark whatever is made upon these strangely liberal expressions of peter, and neither the proposition of james nor the speech in which he makes it takes the slightest notice of them. the conduct of peter at antioch and the influence exercised by james through his emissaries restore us to historical ground. whether the author intended to represent that the object of the conditions of the decree was to admit the gentile christians to full communion with the jewish, or merely to the subordinate position of proselytes of the gate, is uncertain, but it is not necessary to discuss the point. there is not the slightest external evidence that such a decree ever existed, and the more closely the details are examined the more evident does it become that it has no historical consistency. how, and upon what principle, were these singular conditions selected? their heterogeneous character is at once apparent, but not so the { } reason for a combination which is neither limited to jewish customs nor sufficiently representative of moral duties. it has been argued, on the one hand, that the prohibitions of the apostolic decree are simply those, reduced to a necessary minimum, which were enforced in the case of heathen converts to judaism who did not join themselves fully to the people of the covenant by submitting to circumcision, but were admitted to imperfect communion as proselytes of the gate.( ) the conditions named, however, do not fully represent the rules framed for such cases, and many critics consider that the conditions imposed, although they may have been influenced by the noachiaii prescriptions, were rather moral duties which it was, from special circumstances, thought expedient to specify.( ) "we shall presently refer to some of these conditions, but bearing in mind the views which were dominant amongst primitive christians, and more especially, as is obvious, amongst the christians of jerusalem where this decree is supposed to have been unanimously adopted, bearing in mind the teaching which is said to have led to the council, the episode at antioch, and the systematic judaistic opposition which retarded the work of paul and subsequently affected his reputation, it may be instructive { } to point out not only the vagueness which exists as to the position which it was intended that the gentiles should acquire, as the effect of this decree, but also its singular and total inefficiency. an apologetic writer, having of course in his mind the fact that there is no trace of the operation of the decree, speaks of its conditions as follows: "the miscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, they had no binding force independently of the circumstances which dictated them. they were a temporary expedient framed to meet a temporary emergency. their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed communities of jew and gentile converts. beyond this recognised aim and general understanding implied therein, the limits of their application were not defined." in fact the immunity granted to the gentiles was thus practically almost unconditional. it is obvious, however, that every consideration which represents the decree as more completely emancipating gentile christians from mosaic obligations, and admitting them into free communion with believers amongst the jews, places it in more emphatic contradiction to historical facts and the statements of the apostle paul. the unanimous adoption of such a measure in jerusalem, on the one hand, and, on the other, the episode at antioch, the fear of peter, the silence of paul, and the attitude of james become perfectly inconceivable. if on the contrary the conditions were seriously imposed and really meant anything, a number of difficulties spring up of which we shall presently speak. that the prohibitions, in the opinion of the author of the acts, constituted a positive and binding obligation can scarcely be doubted by anyone who considers the terms in which they are laid down. if { } they are represented as a concession they are nevertheless recognised as a "burden," and they are distinctly stated to be the obligations which "it seemed good to the holy spirit" as well as to the council to impose. the qualification, that the restrictive clauses had no binding force "independently of the circumstances which dictated them," in so far as it has any meaning beyond the unnecessary declaration that the decree was only applicable to the class for whom it was framed, seems to be inadmissible. the circumstance which dictated the decree was the counter-teaching of jewish christians, that it was necessary that the gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of moses. the restrictive clauses are simply represented as those which it was deemed right to impose; and, as they are stated without qualification, it is holding the decision of the "holy spirit" and of the church somewhat cheap to treat them as mere local and temporary expedients. this is evidently not the view of the author of the acts. would it have been the view of anyone else if it were not that, so far as any external trace of the decree is concerned, it is an absolute myth? the prevalence of practices to which the four prohibitions point is quite sufficiently attested to show that, little as there is any ground for considering that such a decree was framed in such a manner, the restrictive clauses are put forth as necessary and permanently binding. the very doubt which exists as to whether the prohibitions were not intended to represent the conditions imposed on proselytes of the gate shows their close analogy to them, and it cannot be reasonably asserted that the early christians regarded those conditions either as obsolete or indifferent. the decree is clearly intended to set forth the terms upon which gentile christians were { } to be admitted into communion, and undoubtedly is to be taken as applicable not merely to a few districts, but to the gentiles in general. the account which paul gives of his visit not only ignores any such decree, but excludes it. in the first place, taking into account the apostle's character and the spirit of his epistle, it is impossible to suppose that paul had any intention of submitting, as to higher authority, the gospel which he preached, for the judgment of the elder apostles and of the church of jerusalem.( ) nothing short of this is involved in the account in the acts, and in the form of the decree which promulgates, in an authoritative manner, restrictive clauses which "seemed good to the holy spirit" and to the council. the temper of the man is well shown in paul's indignant letter to the galatians. he receives his gospel, not from men, but by direct revelation from jesus christ and, so far is he from submission of the kind implied, that he says: "but even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. as we have said before, so say i now again: if any man preach any gospel to you other than that ye received, let him be accursed."( ) that the apostle here refers to his own peculiar teaching, and does so in contradistinction to the gospel preached by the judaizers, is evident from the preceding words: "i marvel that ye are so soon removing from him that called you in the grace of christ unto a different gospel; which is not another, only there are { } some that trouble you, and desire to pervert the gospel of christ."( ) passing from this, however, to the restrictive clauses in general, how is it possible that paul could state, as the result of his visit, that the "pillar" apostles "communicated nothing" after hearing his gospel, if the four conditions of this decree had thus been authoritatively "communicated"? on the contrary, paul distinctly adds that, in acknowledging his mission, but one condition had been attached: "only that we should remember the poor; which very thing i also was forward to do."( ) as one condition is here mentioned, why not the others, had any been actually imposed? it is argued that the remembrance of the poor of jerusalem which is thus inculcated was a recommendation personally made to paul and barnabas, but it is clear that the apostle's words refer to the result of his communication of his gospel, and to the understanding under which his mission to the gentiles was tolerated. we have already pointed out how extraordinary it is that such a decision of the council should not have been referred to in describing his visit, and the more we go into details the more striking and inexplicable, except in one way, is such silence. in relating the struggle regarding the circumcision of titus, for instance, and stating that he did not yield, no, not for an hour, to the demands made on the subject, is it conceivable that, if the exemption of all gentile christians from the initiatory rite had { } been unanimously conceded, paul would not have added to his statement about titus, that not only he himself had not been compelled to give way in this instance, but that his representations had even convinced those who had been apostles before him, and secured the unanimous adoption of his own views on the point? the whole of this epistle is a vehement and intensely earnest denunciation of those judaizers who were pressing the necessity of the initiatory rite upon the galatian converts.( ) is it possible that the apostle could have left totally unmentioned the fact that the apostles and the very church of jerusalem had actually declared circumcision to be unnecessary? it would not have accorded with paul's character, it is said, to have appealed to the authority of the elder apostles or of the church in a matter in which his own apostolic authority and teaching were in question. in that case, bow can it be supposed that he ever went at all up to jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question? if he was not too proud to lay aside his apostolic dignity and, representing the christians of antioch, to submit the case to the council at jerusalem, and subsequently to deliver its decree to various communities, is it consistent with reason or common sense to assert that he was too proud to recall the decision of that council to the christians of galatia? it must, we think, be obvious that, if such an explanation of paul's total silence as to the decree be at all valid, it is absolutely fatal to the account of paul's visit in the acts. this reasoning is not confined to the epistle to the galatians but, as paley "turning from antioch to galatia, we meet with judaic teachers who urged circumcision on the gentile converts, and, as the best means of weakening the authority of st. paul, asserted for the apostles of the circumcision the exclusive right of dictating to the church." lightfoot, ep. to the gal. p. . { } points out, applies to the other epistles of paul, in all of which the same silence is preserved. moreover, the apologetic explanation altogether fails upon other grounds. without appealing to the decree as an authority, we must feel sure that the apostle would at least have made use of it as a logical refutation of his adversaries. the man who did not hesitate to attack peter openly for inconsistency, and charge him with hypocrisy, would not have hesitated to cite the decree as evidence, and still less to fling it in the faces of those judaizers who, so short a time after that decree is supposed to have been promulgated, preached the necessity of circumcision and mosaic observances in direct opposition to its terms, whilst claiming to represent the views of the very apostles and church which had framed it. paul, who never denies the validity of their claim, would most certainly have taunted them with gross inconsistency and retorted that the church of jerusalem, the apostles, and the judaizers who now troubled him and preached circumcision and the mosaic law had, four or five years previously, declared as the deliberate decision of the holy spirit and the council, that they were no longer binding on the gentile converts. by such a reference "the discussion would have been foreclosed." none of the reasons which are suggested to explain the undeniable fact that there is no mention of the decree can really bear examination, and that fact remains supported by a great many powerful considerations, leading to the very simple explanation which reconciles all difficulties, that the narrative of the acts is not authentic. we arrive at the very same results when we examine the apostle's references to the practices which the conditions of the decree were intended to control. instead of recognising the authority of the decree, or enforcing its { } prescriptions, he does not even allow us to infer its existence, and he teaches disregard at least of some of its restrictions. the decree enjoins the gentile christians to abstain from meats offered to idols. paul tells the corinthians to eat whatever meat is sold in the shambles without asking questions for conscience sake, for an idol is nothing in the world, "neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse."( ) it is not conceivable that the apostle could so completely have ignored the prohibition of the decree if he had actually submitted the question to the apostles, and himself so distinctly acquiesced in their decision as to distribute the document amongst the various communities whom he subsequently visited. to argue that the decree was only intended to have force in antioch, and syria, and cilicia, to which, as the locality in which the difficulty had arisen which had originally led to the council, the decree was, in the first instance, addressed, is highly arbitrary; but, when proceeding further, apologists( ) draw a distinction between those churches "which had already been founded, and which had felt the pressure of jewish prejudice (acts xvi. )," and "brotherhoods afterwards formed and lying beyond the reach of such influences," as a reason why no notice of the decree is taken in the case of the corinthians and romans, the special pleading ignores very palpable facts. "jewish prejudices" are represented in the acts of the apostles themselves as being more than usually strong in corinth. there was a jewish synagogue there, augmented probably by the jews expelled from rome under claudius,( ) and their violence against { } paul finally obliged him to leave the place.( ) living in the midst of an idolatrous city, and much exposed to the temptations of sacrificial feasts, we might naturally expect excessive rigour against participation, on the one hand, and perhaps too great indifference, on the other; and this we actually find to have been the case. it is in consequence of questions respecting meats offered to idols that paul writes to the corinthians, and whilst treating the matter in itself as one of perfect indifference, merely inculcates consideration for weak consciences.( ) it is clear that there was a decided feeling against the practice; it is clear that strong jewish prejudices existed in the jewish colony at corinth, and wherever there were jews the eating of meats offered to idols was an abomination. the sin of israel at baalpeor( ) lived in the memory of the people, and abstinence from such pollution( ) was considered a duty. if the existence of such "jewish prejudices" was a reason for publishing the decree, we have, in fact, more definite evidence of them in corinth than we have in antioch, for, apart from this specific mention of the subject of eating sacrificial meats, the two apostolic letters abundantly show the existence and activity of judaistic parties there, which opposed the work of paul, and desired to force mosaic observances upon his converts. it is impossible to admit that, supposing such a decree to have been promulgated as the mind of the holy spirit, there could be any reason why it should have been unknown at corinth so short a time after it was adopted. when, therefore, we find the apostle not only ignoring it, but actually declaring that to be a matter of indifference, abstinence from which it had just seemed { } good to the holy spirit to enjoin, the only reasonable conclusion is that paul himself was totally ignorant of the existence of any decree containing such a prohibition. there is much difference of opinion as to the nature of the [------] referred to in the decree, and we need not discuss it; but in all the apostle's homilies upon the subject there is the same total absence of all allusion to the decision of the council. nowhere can any practical result from the operation of the decree be pointed out, nor any trace even of its existence. the assertions and conjectures, by which those who maintain the authenticity of the narrative in the acts seek to explain the extraordinary absence of all external evidence of the decree, labour under the disadvantage of all attempts to account for the total failure of effects from a supposed cause, the existence of which is in reality only assumed. it is customary to reply to the objection that there is no mention of the decree in the epistles of paul or in any other contemporary writing, that this is a mere argument _a silentio_. is it not, however, difficult to imagine any other argument, from contemporary sources, regarding what is affirmed to have had no existence, than that from silence do apologists absolutely demand that, with prophetic anticipation of future controversies, the apostle paul should obligingly have left on record that there actually was no council such as a writer would subsequently describe, and that the decree which he { } would put forward as the result of that council must not he accepted as genuine? it is natural to expect that, when writing of the very visit in question, and dealing with subjects and discussions in which, whether in the shape of historical allusion, appeal to authority, taunt for inconsistency, or assertion of his own influence, some allusion to the decree would have been highly appropriate, if not necessary, the apostle paul should at least have given some hint of its existence. his not doing so constitutes strong presumptive evidence against the authenticity of the decree, and all the more so as no more positive evidence than silence could possibly be forthcoming of the non-existence of that which never existed. the supposed decree of the council of jerusalem cannot on any ground be accepted as a historical fact.( ) we may now return to such further consideration of the statements of the epistle as may seem necessary for the object of our inquiry. no mention is made by the apostle of any official mission on the subject of circumcision, and the discussion of that question arises in a merely incidental manner from the presence of titus, an uncircumcised gentile christian. there has been much discussion as to whether titus actually was circumcised or not, and there { } can be little doubt that the omission of the negative [------] from gal. ii. , has been in some cases influenced by the desire to bring the apostle's conduct upon this occasion into harmony with the account, in acts xvi. , of his circumcising timothy.( ) we shall not require to enter into any controversy on the point, for the great majority of critics are agreed that the apostle intended to say that titus was not circumcised, although the contrary is affirmed by a few writers.( ) it is obvious from the whole of the apostle's narrative that great pressure was exerted to induce titus to submit, and that paul, if he did not yield even for an hour the required subjection, had a long and severe struggle to maintain his position. even when relating the circumstances in his letter to the galatians, the recollection of his contest profoundly stirs the apostle's indignation; his utterance becomes vehement, but cannot keep pace with his impetuous thoughts, and the result is a narrative in broken and abrupt sentences whose very incompleteness is eloquent, and betrays the irritation which has not even yet entirely subsided. how does this accord with the whole tone of the account in the acts? it is customary with apologists to insert so much between the lines of that narrative, partly from imagination and partly from the statements of the epistle, that they almost convince themselves and others that such additions are actually suggested by the author of the acts himself. if we take the account of the acts, however, without such transmutations, it is certain that not only is there not the slightest indication of any struggle regarding the { } circumcision of titus, "in which st. paul maintained at one time almost single-handed the cause of gentile freedom,"( ) but no suggestion that there had ever been any hesitation on the part of the leading apostles and the mass of the church regarding the point at issue. the impression given by the author of the acts is undeniably one of unbroken and undisturbed harmony: of a council in which the elder apostles were of one mind with paul, and warmly agreed with him that the gentiles should be delivered from the yoke of the mosaic law and from the necessity of undergoing the initiatory rite. what is there in such an account to justify in any degree the irritation displayed by paul at the mere recollection of this visit, or to merit the ironical terms with which he speaks of the "pillar" apostles? we may, however, now consider the part which the apostles must have taken in the dispute regarding the circumcision of titus. is it possible to suppose that, if the circumcision of paul's follower had only been demanded by certain of the sect of the pharisees who believed, unsupported by the rest, there could ever have been any considerable struggle on the point? is it possible, further, to suppose that, if paul had received the cordial support of james and the leading apostles in his refusal to concede the circumcision of titus, such a contest could have been more than momentary and trifling? is it possible that the apostle paul could have spoken of "certain of the sect of the pharisees who believed" in such terms as: "to whom we yielded by the submission [------] no not for an hour?"( ) or that he could have used this expression if those who pressed the demand upon him had not been in a position { } of authority, which naturally suggested a subjection which paul upon this occasion persistently refused? it is not possible. of course many writers who seek to reconcile the two narratives, and some of whom substitute for the plain statements of the acts and of the apostle, an account which is not consistent with either, suppose that the demand for the circumcision of titus proceeded solely from the "false brethren,"( ) although some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may have thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder apostles.( ) it is almost too clear for dispute, however, that the desire that titus should be circumcised was shared or pressed by the elder apostles.( ) according to the showing of the acts, nothing could be more natural than the fact that james and the elders of jerusalem who, so long after (xxi. if.), advised paul to prove his continued observance of the law and that he did not teach the jews to abandon circumcision, should on this occasion have pressed him to circumcise titus. the conduct of peter at antioch, and the constant opposition which paul met with from emissaries { } of james and of the apostles of the circumcision upon the very point of gentile circumcision, all support the inevitable conclusion, that the pressure upon paul in the matter of titus was not only not resisted by the apostles, but proceeded in no small degree from them. this is further shown by the remainder of paul's account of his visit and by the tone of his remarks regarding the principal apostles, as well as by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent career. we need not repeat that the representation in the acts both of the council and of the whole intercourse between paul and the apostles is one of "unbroken unity."( ) the struggle about titus and the quarrel with peter at antioch are altogether omitted, and the apostolic letter speaks merely of "our beloved barnabas and paul, men that have given up their lives for the name of our lord jesus christ"( ) the language of paul is not so pacific and complimentary. immediately after his statement that he had "yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour," paul continues: "but from those who seem to be something [------]--whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: god accepteth not man's person;--for to me those who seem [------] (to be something) communicated nothing, but, on the contrary, &c. &c., and when they knew the grace that was given to me, james and cephas and john, who seem to be pillars [------], gave to me and barnabas right hands of fellowship that we (should go) unto the gentiles," &c. &c.( ) the tone and language of this passage are certainly { } depreciatory of the elder apostles,( ) and, indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. it is argued by some who recognise the irony of the term [------] applied to the apostles, that the disparagement which is so transparent in the form [------], "those who seem to be something," is softened again in the new turn which is given to it in ver. , [------], "those who seem to be pillars," in which, it is said, "the apostle expresses the real greatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate field of labour."( ) it seems to us that this interpretation cannot be sustained. paul is ringing the changes on [------], and contrasting with the position they assumed and the estimation in which they were held, his own experience of them, and their inability to add anything to him. "those who seem to be something," he commences, but immediately interrupts himself, after having thus indicated the persons whom he meant, with the more direct protest of irritated independence:--"whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: god accepteth not man's person." these [------] communicated nothing to him, but, on the contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, "those who seem to be pillars" gave him hands of fellowship, but nothing more, and they went their different ways, he to the gentiles and they to the circumcision. if the { } expression: [------] be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be construed into a declaration of respect, but forms part of a passage whose tone throughout is proudly depreciatory. this is followed by such words as "hypocrisy" [------] and "condemned" [------] applied to the conduct of peter at antioch, as well as the mention of the emissaries of james as the cause of that dispute, which add meaning to the irony. this is not, however, the only occasion on which paul betrays a certain bitterness against the elder apostles. in his second letter to the corinthians, xi. , he says, "for i reckon that i am not a whit behind the over much apostles" [------], and again, xii. , "for in nothing was i behind the over much apostles" [------]; and the whole of the vehement passage in which these references are set shows the intensity of the feeling which called them forth. to say that the expressions in the galatian epistle and here are "depreciatory, not indeed of the twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the judaizers,"( ) is an extremely arbitrary distinction. they are directly applied to the apostles, and [------] cannot be taken as irony against those who over-estimated them, but against the [------] themselves. paul's blows generally go straight to their mark. meyer argues that the designation of the apostles as [------] is purely historical, and cannot be taken as ironical, inasmuch as it would be inconsistent to suppose that paul could adopt a depreciatory tone when he is relating his recognition as a colleague by the elder apostles;( ) and others consider that { } ver. , , contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between paul and the twelve. even if this were so, it could not do away with the actual irony of the expressions; but do the facts support such a statement? we have seen that, in spite of the picture of unbroken unity drawn by the author of the acts, and the liberal sentiments regarding the gentiles which he puts into the mouth of peter and of james, paul had a severe and protracted struggle to undergo in order to avoid circumcising titus. we have already stated the grounds upon which it seems certain that the pressure upon that occasion came as well from the elder apostles as the "false brethren," and critics who do not go so far as to make this positive affirmation, at least recognise the passive, and therefore to a large extent compliant, attitude which the apostles must have held. it is after narrating some of the particulars of this struggle that paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have been discussing; and having added, "for to me those who seem (to be something) communicated nothing," he says, "_but, on the contrary_, when they saw that i have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as peter with that of the circumcision (for he that wrought for peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also for me unto the gentiles); and when they knew the grace that was given unto me, james and cephas and john, who seem to be pillars, gave to me and barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we (should go) unto the gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: only that we should remember the poor; which very thing i also was forward to do." it will be observed that, after saying they "communicated nothing" to him, the apostle adds, in opposition, "but, on the { } contrary" [------]. in what does this opposition consist? apparently in this, that, instead of strengthening the hands of paul, they left him to labour alone. they said: "take your own course; preach the gospel of the uncircumcision to gentiles, and we will preach the gospel of the circumcision to jews."( ) in fact, when paul returned to jerusalem for the second time after fourteen years, he found the elder apostles not one whit advanced towards his own uni-versalism; they retained their former jewish prejudices, and remained as before apostles of the circumcision.( ) notwithstanding the strong pauline sentiments put into peter's mouth by the author of the acts, and his claim to have been so long before selected by god that by his mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe, paul singles out peter as specially entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision; and, in the end, after paul has exerted all his influence, peter and the rest remain unmoved, and allow paul to go to the gentiles, while they confine their ministry as before to the jews. the success of paul's work amongst the heathen was too palpable a fact to be ignored, but there is no reason to believe that the conversion of the gentiles, upon his terms, was more than tolerated at that time, or the gentile christians admitted to more than such imperfect communion with the jewish christians as that of proselytes of the gate in relation to judaism. this is shown by the conduct of peter at antioch after the supposed council, and of the jews with him, and even of barnabas, { } through fear of the emissaries of james, whose arrival certainly could not have produced a separation between jewish and gentile christians had the latter been recognised as in full communion. the "hands of fellowship" clearly was a mere passive permission of paul's mission to the gentiles, but no positive and hearty approval of it testified by active support.( ) it must, we think, be evident to any one who attentively considers the passage we are examining, that there is no question whatever in it of a recognition of the apostolate of paul.( ) the elder apostles consent to his mission to the gentiles, whilst they themselves go to the circumcision; but there is not a syllable which indicates that paul's claim to the title of apostle was ever either acknowledged or discussed. it is not probable that paul would have submitted such a point to their consideration. it is difficult to see how the elder apostles could well have done less than they did, and the extent of their fellowship seems to have simply amounted to toleration of what they could not prevent. the pressure for the circumcision of the gentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress the peculiar principle of the gospel of uncircumcision; and though that effort failed through the determined resistance of paul, { } it is clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the circumcision, that the elder apostles in no way abandoned their view of the necessity of the initiatory rite. the episode at antioch is a practical illustration of this statement. hilgenfeld ably remarks:--"when we consider that peter was afraid of the circumcised christians, there can be no doubt _that james, at the head of the primitive community, made the attempt to force heathen christians to adopt the substance of jewish legitimacy, by breaking off ecclesiastical community with them_."( ) the gentile christians were virtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of james, or at least treated as mere proselytes of the gate; and the pressure upon the galatian converts of the necessity of circumcision by similar judaizing emissaries, which called forth the vehement and invaluable epistle before us, is quite in accordance with the circumstances of this visit. the separation agreed upon between paul and the elder apostles was not in any sense geographical, but purely ethnological.( ) it was no mere division of labour,( ) no suitable apportionment of work. the elder apostles determined, like their master before them, to confine their ministry to jews, whilst paul, if he pleased, might go to the gentiles; and the mere fact that peter subsequently goes to antioch, as well as many other { } circumstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a selection of race was intended. if there had not been this absolute difference of purpose, any separation would have been unnecessary, and all the apostles would have preached one gospel indifferently to all who had ears to hear it; such strange inequality in the partition of the work could never have existed: that paul should go unaided to the gigantic task of converting the heathen, while the twelve reserved themselves for the small but privileged people. all that we have said at the beginning of this section of the nature of primitive christianity, and of the views prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their master, is verified by this attitude of the three during the famous visit of the apostle of the gentiles to jerusalem, and paul's account is precisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason, unwarped by the ideal representations of the acts, prepare us to expect. the more deeply we go into the statements of paul the more is this apparent, and the more palpable does the inauthenticity of the narrative of the council appear. the words of paul in describing the final understanding are very remarkable and require further consideration. the decision that they should go to the circumcision and paul to the gentiles is based upon the recognition of a different gospel entrusted to him, the gospel of the uncircumcision, as the gospel of the circumcision is entrusted to peter. it will be remembered that paul states that, on going up to jerusalem upon this occasion, he communicated to them the gospel which he preached among the gentiles, and it is probable that he made the journey more especially for this purpose. it appears from the account that this gospel was not only new to them, but was { } distinctly diflferent from that of the elder apostles. if paul preached the same gospel as the rest, what necessity could there have been for communicating it at all? what doubt that by any means he might be running, or had run, in vain? he knew perfectly well that he preached a diflferent gospel from the apostles of the circumcision, and his anxiety probably was to secure an amicable recognition of the gentile converts whom he had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary and the obligation of the law removed. of course there was much that was fundamentally the same in the two gospels, starting as they both did with the recognition of jesus as the messiah; but their points of divergence were very marked and striking, and more especially in directions where the prejudices of the apostles of the circumcision were the strongest avoiding all debatable ground, it is clear that the gospel of the uncircumcision, which proclaimed the abrogation of the law and the inutility of the initiatory rite, must have been profoundly repugnant to jews, who still preached the obligation of circumcision and the observance of the law. "christ redeemed us from the curse of the law"( ) said the gospel of the uncircumcision. "behold, i, paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, christ will profit you nothing.... for in christ jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love."( ) "for neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."( ) the teaching which was specially designated the gospel of the circumcision, in contradistinction to this gospel of the uncircumcision, held very diflferent language. there is no gainsaying the { } main fact--and that fact, certified by paul himself and substantiated by a host of collateral circumstances, is more conclusive than all conciliatory apologetic reasoning--that, at the date of this visit to jerusalem (c. a.d. - ), the three, after hearing all that paul had to say, allowed him to go alone to the gentiles, but themselves would have no part in the mission, and turned as before to the circumcision. there is another point to which we must very briefly refer. the statements of paul show that, antecedent to this visit to jerusalem, paul had been the active apostle of the gentiles, preaching his gospel of the uncircumcision, and that subsequently he returned to the same field of labour. if we examine the narrative of the acts, we do not find him represented in any special manner as the apostle of the gentiles, but, on the contrary, whilst peter claims the honour of having been selected that by his voice the gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe, paul is everywhere described as going to the jews, and only when his teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the gentiles. it is true that ananias is represented as being told by the lord that paul is a chosen vessel "to bear my name both before gentiles and kings, and the sons of israel;"( ) and paul subsequently recounts how the lord had said to himself, "go, for i will send thee far hence unto gentiles."( ) the author of the acts, however, everywhere conveys the impression that paul very reluctantly fulfils this mission, and that if he had but been successful amongst the jews he never would have gone to the gentiles at all. immediately after his conversion, he preaches in the synagogues at damascus and confounds the jews,( ) as he { } again does during his visit to jerusalem.( ) when the holy spirit desires the church at antioch to separate barnabas and saul for the work whereunto he has called them, they continue to announce the word of god "in the synagogues of the jews,"( ) and in narrating the conversion of the roman proconsul at paphos, it is said that it is sergius paulus himself who calls for barnabas and saul, and seeks to hear the word of god.( ) when they came to antioch in pisidia, they go into the synagogue of the jews( ) as usual, and it is only after the jews reject them that paul and barnabas are described as saying:--"it was necessary that the word of god should first be spoken to you: seeing that ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles."( ) in iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they go into the synagogue of the jews,( ) and later, it is stated that paul, on arriving at thessalonica, "as his custom was," went into the synagogue of the jews, and for three sabbaths discoursed to them.( ) at corinth, it was only when the jews opposed him and blasphemed, that paul is represented as saying: "your blood be upon your own head; i will henceforth, with a pure conscience, go unto the gentiles." it is impossible to distinguish from this narrative any difference between the ministry of paul and that of the other apostles. they all address themselves mainly and primarily to the jews, although if gentiles desire to eat of "the crumbs which fall from the children's bread" they are not rejected. even the pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make proselytes. in no sense can { } the paul of the acts be considered specially an apostle of the gentiles, and the statement of the epistle to the galatians( ) has no significance, if interpreted by the historical work. apologists usually reply to this objection, that the practice of paul in the acts is in accordance with his own words in the epistle to the romans, i. , in which, it is asserted, he recognizes the right of the jews to precedence. in the authorised version this passage is rendered as follows:--"for i am not ashamed of the gospel of christ: for it is the power of god unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the jew first and also to the greek."( ) [------] as a matter of fact we may here at once state that the word [------] "first," is not found in codices b and g, and that it is omitted from the latin rendering of the verse quoted by tertullian.( ) that the word upon which the controversy turns should not be found in so important a ms. as the vatican codex or in so ancient a version as tertullian's is very significant, but proceeding at once to the sense of the sentence, we must briefly state the reasons which seem to us conclusively to show that the usual reading is erroneous. the passage is an emphatic statement of the principles of paul. he declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel, and he immediately states the reason: "for it is a power of god unto salvation to everyone that believeth."( ) he is not ashamed of the gospel because he recognizes its universality; for, in { } opposition to the exclusiveness of judaism, he maintains that all are "sons of god through faith in christ jesus... there is neither jew nor greek... for ye are all one man in christ jesus. and if ye be christ's then are ye abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."( ) "for in christ jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love."( ) the reason which he gives is that which lies at the basis of the whole of his special teaching; but we are asked to believe that, after so clear and comprehensive a declaration, he at once adds the extraordinary qualification: [------], rendered "to the jew first and also to the greek." what is the meaning of such a limitation? if the gospel be a power of god unto salvation "to every one that believeth" [------], in what manner can it possibly be so "to the jew first"? can it be maintained that there are comparative degrees in salvation? "salvation" is obviously an absolute term. if saved at all, the jew cannot be more saved than the greek. if, on the other hand, the expression be interpreted as an assertion that the jew has a right of precedence either in the offer or the attainment of salvation before the greek, the manner of its realization is almost equally inconceivable, and a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific pauline teaching, immediately present themselves. there can be no doubt that the judaistic view distinctly was that israel must first be saved, before the heathen could obtain any part in the messianic kingdom, and we have shown that this idea dominated primitive christianity; and inseparable from this was the belief that the only way to a participation in its benefits lay through judaism. the { } heathen could only obtain admission into the family of israel, and become partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory rite. it was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a conviction that the messianic kingdom was primarily destined for the children of israel, that the elder apostles, even after the date of paul's second visit to jerusalem, continued to confine their ministry "to the circumcision." paul's view was very different. he recognized and maintained the universality of the gospel and, in resolving to go to the heathen, he practically repudiated the very theory of jewish preference which he is here supposed to advance. if the gospel, instead of being a power of god to salvation to every man who believed, was for the jew first, the apostolate of the gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare. what could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to the greek, if the gift, instead of being "for every one that believeth," was a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the jew had first been saved? "salvation to the jew first and also to the greek," if it have any significance whatever of the kind argued,--involving either a prior claim to the offer of salvation, or precedence in its distribution,--so completely destroys all the present interest in it of the gentile, that the gospel must to him have lost all power. to suppose that such an expression simply means, that the gospel must first be preached to the jews in any town to which the apostle might come before it could legitimately be proclaimed to the gentiles of that town, is childish. we have no reason to suppose that paul held the deputy sergius paulus, who desired to hear the word of god and believed, in suspense until the jews of paphos had { } rejected it. the cases of the ethiopian eunuch and cornelius throw no light upon any claim of the jew to priority in salvation. indeed, not to waste time in showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary interpretation, we venture to affirm that there is not a single explanation, which maintains a priority assigned to the jew in any way justifying the reference to this text, which is capable of supporting the slightest investigation. if we linguistically examine the expression [------], we arrive at the same conclusion, that [------] is an interpolation, for we must maintain that [------] with [------] and [------] must be applied equally both to "jew" and "greek," and cannot rightly be appropriated to the jew only, as implying a preference over the greek.( ) the sense, therefore, can only be properly and intelligibly given by disregarding [------] and simply translating the words: "both to jew and greek."( ) this was the rendering of the ancient latin version quoted by tertullian in his work against marcion: "itaque et hie, cum dicit: non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in salutem omni credenti, judæo et græco, quia justitia dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem.,,( ) we are not left without further examples of the very same expression, and an examination of the context will amply demonstrate that paul used it in no other sense. in the { } very next chapter the apostle twice uses the same words. after condemning the hasty and unrighteous judgment of man, he says: "for we know that the judgment of god is according to truth.... who will render to every one according to his works; to them who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that act out of factious spirit and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, anger, and wrath: affliction and distress upon every soul of man that worketh evil, both of jew and of greek [------], a. v. "of the jew first, and also of the gentile"; but glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good, both to jew and to greek [------], a. v. "to the jew first, and also to the gentile"). for there is no respect of persons with god."( ) how is it possible that, if the apostle had intended to assert a priority of any kind accorded to the jew before the gentile, he could at the same time have added: "for there is no respect of persons with god "? if salvation be "to the jew first," there is very distinctly respect of persons with god. the very opposite, however, is repeatedly and emphatically asserted by paul in this very epistle. "for there is no difference between jew and greek" [------], he says, "for the same lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. for whosoever shall call upon the name of the lord shall be saved."( ) here, we have the phrase without [------]. nothing could be more clear and explicit. the precedence of the jew is directly excluded. at the end of the second chapter, moreover, he explains his idea of a jew: { } "for he is not a jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in flesh, but he is a jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in spirit not letter."( ) if anything further were required to prove that the apostle does not by the expression: [------], intend to indicate any priority accorded to the jew, it is supplied by the commencement of the third chapter. "what then is the advantage of the jew? or what the profit of circumcision?" it is obvious that if the apostle had just said that the gospel was the power of god unto salvation, "to jew first and also to greek," he had stated a very marked advantage to the jew, and that such an inquiry as the above would have been wholly unnecessary. the answer which he gives to his own question, however, completes our certainty. "much every way," he replies; but in explaining what the "much" advantage was, we hear no more of "to jew first:" "much every way: for first indeed they were entrusted with the oracles of god."( ) and, after a few words, he proceeds: "what then? are we better? not at all; for we before brought the charge that both jews and greeks [------] are all under sin."( ) here, again, there is no [------]. there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who understands what paul's teaching was, and what he means by claiming the special title of "apostle to the gentiles," that in going "to the heathen" after his visit to jerusalem, as before it, there was no purpose in his mind to preach to the jews first and only on being rejected by them to turn to the gentiles, as the acts would have us suppose; but that the principle which regulated his proclamation of the gospel was that which we have { } already quoted: "for there is no difference between jew and greek; for the same lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. for whosoever shall call upon the name of the lord shall be saved."( ) still more incongruous is the statement of the acts that paul took timothy and circumcised him because of the jews. according to this narrative, shortly after the supposed council of jerusalem at which it was decided that circumcision of gentile converts was unnecessary; immediately after paul had in spite of great pressure refused to allow titus to be circumcised; and after it had been agreed between the apostle of the gentiles and james and cephas and john that while they should go to the circumcision, he, on the contrary, should go to the heathen, paul actually took and circumcised timothy. apologists, whilst generally admitting the apparent contradiction, do not consider that this act involves any real inconsistency, and find reasons which, they affirm, sufficiently justify it. some of these we shall presently examine, but we may at once say that no apologetic arguments seem to us capable of resisting the conclusion arrived at by many independent critics, that the statement of the acts with regard to timothy is opposed to all that we know of paul's views, and that for unassailable reasons it must be pronounced unhistorical.( ) the author of the acts says: "and he (paul) came to derbe and lystra. and behold a certain disciple was there, named timothy, son of a { } believing jewish woman, but of a greek father; who was well reported of by the brethren in lystra and iconium. him would paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the jews which were in those places [------]; for they all knew that his father was a greek [------]."( ) the principal arguments of those who maintain the truth and consistency of this narrative briefly are: paul resisted the circumcision of titus because he was a greek, and because the subject then actually under consideration was the immunity from the jewish rite of gentile christians, which would have been prejudiced had he yielded the point. on the other hand, timothy was the son of a jewish mother, and whilst there was no principle here in question, paul circumcised the companion whom he had chosen to accompany him in his missionary journey, both as a recognition of his jewish origin and to avoid offence to the jews whom they should encounter in the course of their ministry, as well as to secure for him access to the synagogues which they must visit: paul in this instance, according to all apologists putting in practice his own declaration ( cor. ix. - ): "for being free from all men, i made myself servant unto all that i might gain the more; and unto the jews i became as a jew, that i might gain jews." it must be borne in mind that the author who chronicles the supposed circumcision of timothy makes no allusion to the refusal of paul to permit titus to be circumcised; an omission which is not only singular in itself, but significant when we find him, immediately after, narrating so singular a concession of which the { } apostle makes no mention. of course it is clear that paul could not have consented to the circumcision of titus, and we have only to consider in what manner the case of timothy differed so as to support the views of those who hold that paul, who would not yield to the pressure brought to bear upon him in the case of titus, might, quite consistently, so short a time after, circumcise timothy with his own hand. it is true that the necessity of circumcision for gentile christians came prominently into question, during paul's visit to jerusalem, from the presence of his uncircumcised follower titus, and no doubt the abrogation of the rite must have formed a striking part of the exposition of his gospel, which paul tells us he made upon this occasion; but it is equally certain that the necessity of circumcision long continued to be pressed by the judaistic party in the church. it cannot fairly be argued that, at any time, paul could afford to relax his determined and consistent attitude as the advocate for the universality of christianity and the abrogation of a rite, insistence upon which, he had been the first to recognise, would have been fatal to the spread of christianity. to maintain that he could safely make such a concession of his principles and himself circumcise timothy, simply because at that precise moment there was no active debate upon the point, is inadmissible; for his epistles abundantly prove that the topic, if it ever momentarily subsided into stubborn silence, was continually being revived with renewed bitterness. pauline views could never have prevailed if he had been willing to sacrifice them for the sake of conciliation, whenever they were not actively attacked. the difference of the occasion cannot be admitted { } as a valid reason; let us, therefore, see whether any difference in the persons and circumstances removes the contradiction. it is argued that such a difference exists in the fact that, whilst titus was altogether a gentile, timothy, on the side of his mother at least, was a jew; and thiersch, following a passage quoted by wetstein, states that, according to talmudic prescriptions, the validity of mixed marriages between a jewess and a gentile was only recognized upon the condition that the children should be brought up in the religion of the mother. in this case, he argues, paul merely carried out the requirement of the jewish law by circumcising timothy, which others had omitted to do, and thus secured his admission to the jewish synagogues to which much of his ministry was directed, but from which he would have been excluded had the rite not been performed.( ) even meyer, however, in reference to this point, replies that paul could scarcely be influenced by the talmudic canon, because timothy was already a christian and beyond judaism.( ) besides, in point of fact, by such a marriage the jewess had forfeited jewish privileges. timothy, in the eyes of the mosaic law, was not a jew, and held, in reality, no better position than the greek titus. he had evidently been brought up as a heathen, and the only question which could arise in regard to him was whether he must first become a jew before he could be fully recognized as a christian. the supposition that the circumcision of timothy, the son of a greek, after he had actually become a christian without having passed through judaism, { } could secure for him free access to the synagogues of the jews, may show how exceedingly slight at that time was the difference between the jew and the christian, but it also suggests the serious doubt whether the object of the concession, in the mind of the author of the acts, was not rather to conciliate the judaic christians, than to represent the act as one of policy towards the unbelieving jews. the statement of the acts is that paul circumcised timothy "because of the jews which were in those places; for they knew all that his father was a greek." if the reason which we are discussing were correct, the expression would more probably have been: "for they knew that his mother was a jewess." the greek father might, and probably did, object to the circumcision of his son, but that was no special reason why paul should circumcise him. on the other hand, the fact that the jews knew that his father was a greek made the action attributed to paul a concession which the author of the acts thus represented in its most conciliatory light. the circumcision of timothy was clearly declared unnecessary by the apostolic decree, for the attempt to show that he was legitimately regarded as a jew utterly fails. it is obvious that, according to pauline doctrine, there could be no obligation for anyone who adopted christianity to undergo this initiatory rite. it is impossible reasonably to maintain that any case has been made out to explain why timothy, who had grown into manhood without being circumcised, and had become a christian whilst uncircumcised, should at that late period be circumcised. beyond the reference to a talmudic prescription, in fact, with which there is not the slightest evidence that paul was acquainted, and which, even if he did know of it, could not possibly have been recognised by him as { } authoritative, there has not been a serious attempt made to show that the case of timothy presents exceptional features which reconcile the contradiction otherwise admitted as apparent. the whole apologetic argument in fact sinks into one of mere expediency: timothy, the son of a jewess and of a greek, and thus having a certain affinity both to jews and gentiles, would become a much more efficient assistant to paul if he were circumcised and thus had access to the jewish synagogues; therefore paul, who himself became as a jew that he might win the jews, demanded the same sacrifice from his follower. but can this argument bear any scrutiny by the light of paul's own writings? it cannot. paul openly claims to be the apostle of the gentiles, and just before the period at which he is supposed to circumcise timothy, he parts from the elder apostles with the understanding that he is to go to the gentiles who are freed from circumcision. it is a singular commencement of his mission, to circumcise the son of a greek father after he had become a christian. such supposed considerations about access to synagogues and conciliation of the jews would seem more suitable to a missionary to the circumcision, than to the apostle of the gentiles. it must be apparent to all that in going more specially to the gentiles, as he avowedly was, the alleged expediency of circumcising timothy falls to the ground, and on the contrary that such an act would have compromised his whole gospel. paul's characteristic teaching was the inutility of circumcision, and upon this point he sustained the incessant attacks of the emissaries of james and the judaistic party without yielding or compromise. what could have been more ill-advised under { } such circumstances than the circumcision with his own hands of a convert who, if the son of a jewess, was likewise the son of a greek, and had remained uncircumcised until he had actually embraced that faith which, paul taught, superseded circumcision? the apostle who declared: "behold, i paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, christ will profit you nothing,"( ) could not have circumcised the christian timothy; and if any utterance of paul more distinctly and explicitly applicable to the present case be required, it is aptly supplied by the following: "was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. hath any man been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.... let each abide in the same calling wherein he was called."( ) apologists quote very glibly the saying of paul: "unto the jews i became as a jew, that i might gain jews," as sufficiently justifying the act which we are considering; but it is neither applicable to the case, nor is the passage susceptible of such interpretation. the special object of paul at that time, according to his own showing,( ) was not to gain jews but to gain gentiles; and the circumcision of timothy would certainly not have tended to gain gentiles. if we quote the whole passage from which the above is extracted, the sense at once becomes clear and different from that assigned to it: "for being free from all men, i made myself servant unto all, that i might gain the more; and unto the jews i became as a jew that i might gain jews; to them under law, as under law, not being myself under law, that i might gain them under law; to them without law, as without law,--not being without law to god, but under law to christ,-- { } that i might gain them without law; to the weak i became weak that i might gain the weak: i am become all things to all men, that i may by all means save some. and all things i do for the gospel's sake, that i may become a partaker thereof with them."(l) it is clear that a man who could become "all things to all men," in the sense of yielding any point of principle, must be considered without principle at all, and no one could maintain that paul was apt to concede principles. judged by his own statements, indeed, his character was the very reverse of this. there is no shade of conciliation when he declares: "but though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel unto you other than that we preached unto you, let him be accursed.... for am i now making men my friends, or god? or am i seeking to please men? if i were still pleasing men, i should not be a servant of christ."( ) the gospel of which he speaks, and which he protests "is not after men," but received "through a revelation of jesus christ,"( ) is that gospel which paul preached among the gentiles, and which proclaimed the abrogation of the law and of circumcision. paul might in one sense say that "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of god;"( ) but such a statement, simply intended to express that there was neither merit in the one nor in the other, clearly does not apply to the case before us, and no way lessens the force of the words we have quoted above: "if ye be circumcised, christ will profit you nothing." in paul such a concession would have been in the highest degree a sacrifice of principle, and one which he not only refused to make in the case of titus, "that the truth of the { } gospel might abide," but equally maintained in the face of the pillar apostles, when he left them and returned to the gentiles whilst they went back to the circumcision. paul's idea of being "all things to all men" is illustrated by his rebuke to peter,--once more to refer to the scene at antioch. peter apparently practised a little of that conciliation, which apologists, defending the unknown author of the acts at the expense of paul, consider to be the sense of the apostle's words. paul repudiated such an inference, by withstanding peter to the face as condemned, and guilty of hypocrisy. paul became all things to all men by considering their feelings, and exhibiting charity and forbearance, in matters indifferent he was careful not to make his liberty a stumbling block to the weak. "if food maketh my brother to offend, i will eat no flesh for ever lest i make my brother to offend."( ) self-abnegation in the use of enlightened liberty, however, is a very different thing from the concession of a rite, which it was the purpose of his whole gospel to discredit, and the labour of his life to resist. once more we repeat that the narrative of the acts regarding the circumcision of timothy is contradictory to the character and teaching of paul as ascertained from his epistles, and like so many other portions of that work which we have already examined must, as it stands, be rejected as unhistorical. we have already tested the narrative of the author of the acts by the statements of paul in the first two chapters of the galatians at such length that, although the subject is far from exhausted, we must not proceed further. we think that there can be no doubt that the role assigned to the apostle paul in acts xv. is unhistorical,( ) { } and it is unnecessary for us to point out the reasons which led the writer to present him in such subdued colours. we must, however, before finally leaving the subject, very briefly point out a few circumstances which throw a singular light upon the relations which actually existed between paul and the elder apostles, and tend to show their real, if covert, antagonism to the gospel of the uncircumcision. we may at the outset remark, in reference to an objection frequently made that paul does not distinctly refer to the apostles as opposing his teaching and does not personally attack them, that such a course would have been suicidal in the apostle of the gentiles, whilst on the other hand it could not but have hindered the acceptance of his gospel, for which he was ever ready to endure so much. the man who wrote: "if it be possible, as much as dependeth on you, be at peace with all men,"( ) could well be silent in such a cause. paul, in venturing to preach the gospel of the uncircumcision, laboured under the singular disadvantage of not having, like the twelve, been an immediate disciple of the master. he had been "as the one born out of due time,"( ) and although he claimed that his gospel had not been taught to him by man but had been received by direct revelation from jesus, there can be no doubt that his apostolic position was constantly assailed. the countenance of the elder apostles, even if merely tacit, was of great { } importance to the success of his work; and he felt this so much that, as he himself states, he went up to jerusalem to communicate to them the gospel which he preached among the gentiles: "lest by any means i might be running or did run in vain."( ) any open breach between them would have frustrated his labours. had paul been in recognized enmity with the twelve who had been selected as his special disciples by the master, and been repudiated and denounced by them, it is obvious that his position would have been a precarious one. he had no desire for schism. his gospel, besides, was merely a development of that of the elder apostles; and, however much they might resent his doctrine of the abrogation of the law and of the inutility of circumcision, they could still regard his gentile converts as at least in some sort proselytes of the gate. with every inducement to preserve peace if by any means possible, and to suppress every expression of disagreement with the twelve, it is not surprising that we find so little direct reference to the elder apostles in his epistles. during his visit to jerusalem he did not succeed in converting them to his views. they still limited their ministry to the circumcision, and he had to be content with a tacit consent to his work amongst the heathen. but although we have no open utterance of his irritation, the suppressed impatience of his spirit, even at the recollection of the incidents of his visit, betrays itself in abrupt sentences, unfinished expressions, and grammar which breaks down in the struggle of repressed emotion. we have already said enough regarding his ironical references to those "who seem to be something," to the "overmuch apostles," and we need not again point { } to the altercation between paul and cephas at antioch, and the strong language used by the former. nothing is more certain than the fact that, during his whole career, the apostle paul had to contend with systematic opposition from the judaic christian party;( ) and the only point regarding which there is any difference of opinion is the share in this taken by the twelve. as we cannot reasonably expect to find any plain statement of this in the writings of the apostle, we are forced to take advantage of such indications as can be discovered. upon one point we are not left in doubt. the withdrawal of peter and the others at antioch from communion with the gentile christians, and consequently from the side of paul, was owing to the arrival of certain men from james, for the apostle expressly states so. no surprise is expressed, however, at the effect produced by these [------], and the clear inference is that they represented the views of a naturally antagonistic party, an inference which is in accordance with all that we elsewhere read of james. it is difficult to separate the [------] from the [------] of the preceding chapter (i. ) who "trouble" the galatians, and "desire to pervert the gospel of christ," asserting the necessity of circumcision, against whom the epistle is directed. again we meet with the same vague and cautious designation of judaistic opponents in his second epistle to the corinthians (iii. ), where { } "some" [------] bearers of "letters of commendation" [------] from persons unnamed, were attacking the apostle and endeavouring to discredit his teaching. by whom were these letters written? we cannot of course give an authoritative reply, but we may ask: by whom could letters of commendation possessing an authority which could have weight against that of paul be written, except by the elder apostles?' we have certain evidence in the first epistle to the corinthians that parties had arisen in the church of corinth in opposition to paul. these parties were distinguished, as the apostle himself states, by the cries: "i am of paul, and i of apollos, and i of cephas, and i of christ."( ) [------]. whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the precise nature of these parties, there can be no doubt that both the party "of cephas" and the party "of christ" held strong judaistic views and assailed the teaching of paul, and his apostolic authority. it is very evident that the persons to whom the apostle refers in connection with "letters of commendation" were of these parties. apologists argue that: "in claiming cephas as the head of their party they had probably neither more nor { } less ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names of apollos and of paul."( ) it is obvious, however, that, in a church founded by paul, there could have been no party created with the necessity to take his name as their watchword, except as a reply to another party which, having intruded itself, attacked him, and forced those who maintained the views of their own apostle to raise such a counter-cry. the parties "of cephas" and "of christ" were manifestly aggressive, intruding themselves, as the apostle complains, into "other men's labours,"( ) and this in some manner seems to point to that convention between the apostle and the three, that he should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcision which, barely more than passive neutrality at the beginning, soon became covertly antagonistic. the fact that the party "of paul" was not an organized body, so to say, directed by the apostle as a party leader, in no way renders it probable that the party of cephas, which carried on active and offensive measures, had not much more ground in claiming cephas as their head. one point is indisputable, that no party ever claims any man as its leader who is not clearly associated with the views it maintains. the party "of cephas," representing judaistic views, opposing the teaching of paul, and joining in denying his apostolic claims, certainly would not have taken peter's name as their watch-cry if he had been known to hold and express such pauline sentiments as are put into his mouth in the acts, or had not, on the contrary, been intimately identified with judaistic principles. to illustrate the case by a modern instance: is it possible to suppose that, in any considerable city in this country, { } a party holding ritualistic opinions could possibly claim the present archbishop of canterbury as its leader, or one professing "broad-church" views could think of sheltering itself under the name of the archbishop of york? religious parties may very probably mistake the delicate details of a leader's teaching, but they can scarcely be wrong in regard to his general principles. if peter had been so unfortunate as to be flagrantly misunderstood by his followers and, whilst this party preached in his name judaistic doctrines and anti-pauline opinions, the apostle himself advocated the abrogation of the law, as a burden which the jews themselves were not able to bear, and actively shared pauline convictions, is it possible to suppose that paul would not have pointed out the absurdity of such a party claiming such a leader? the fact is, however, that paul never denies the claim of those who shelter themselves under the names of peter and james, never questions their veracity, and never adopts the simple and natural course of stating that, in advancing these names, they are imposters or mistaken. on the contrary, upon all occasions he evidently admits, by his silence, the validity of the claim.( ) we are not left to mere inference that the adopted head of the party actually shared the views of the party. paul himself distinguishes peter as the head of the party of the circumcision in a passage in his letter to the galatians already frequently referred to,( ) and the episode at antioch confirms the description, and leaves no doubt that peter's permanent practice was to force the gentiles to judaize. for reasons which we have already stated, paul could not but have desired to preserve peace, or even the { } semblance of it, with the elder apostles, for the gospel's sake; and he, therefore, wisely leaves them as much as possible out of the question and deals with their disciples. it is obvious that policy must have dictated such a course. by ignoring the leaders and attacking their followers, he suppressed the chief strength of his opponents and kept out of sight the most formidable argument against himself: the concurrence with them of the elder apostles. on the one hand, the epistles of paul bear no evidence to any active sympathy and co-operation with his views and work on the part of the elder apostles. on the other, paul is everywhere assailed by judaistic adversaries who oppose his gospel and deny his apostle-ship, and who claim as their leaders the elder apostles. if, even without pressing expressions to their extreme and probable point, we take the contrast drawn between his own gospel and that of the circumcision, the reality of the antagonism must be apparent. "for we are not as the many [------]( ) which adulterate the word of god; but as of sincerity, but as of god, before god, speak we in christ."( ) later on in the letter, after referring to the intrusion of the opposite party into the circle of his labours, paul declares that his impatience and anxiety proceed from godly jealousy at the possible effect of the judaistic intruders upon the corinthians. "but i fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled eve through his subtlety, your thoughts should { } be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in christ. for if he that cometh preacheth another jesus whom we did not preach, or if ye receive another spirit which ye received not, or another gospel which ye did not accept, ye bear well with him. for i think i am not a whit behind the overmuch apostles [------]."( ) this reference to the elder apostles gives point to much of the epistle which is ambiguous, and more especially when the judaistic nature of the opposition is so clearly indicated a few verses further on: "are they hebrews? so am i. are they israelites? so am i. are they abraham's seed? so am i. are they ministers of christ? (i speak as a fool), i am more; in labours more abundantly, in prisons exceedingly, in deaths often," &c, &c.( ) it is argued that the twelve had not sufficient authority over their followers to prevent such interference with paul, and that the relation of the apostle to the twelve was: "separation, not opposition, antagonism of the followers rather than of the leaders, personal antipathy of the judaizers to st. paul, rather than of st. paul to the twelve."( ) it is not difficult to believe that the antipathy of paul to the judaizers was less than that felt by them towards him. the superiority of the man must have rendered him somewhat callous to such dislike.( ) but the mitigated form of difference between paul and the twelve here assumed, although still very different from the representations of the acts, { } cannot be established, but on the contrary must be much widened before it can justly be taken as that existing between paul and the elder apostles. we do not go so far as to say that there was open enmity between them, or active antagonism of any distinct character on the part of the twelve to the apostle of the gentiles, but there is every reason to believe that they not only disliked his teaching, but endeavoured to counteract it by their own ministry of the circumcision. they not only did not restrain the opposition of their followers, but they abetted them in their counter-assertion of judaistic views. had the twelve felt any cordial friendship for paul, and exhibited any active desire for the success of his ministry of the uncircumcision, it is quite impossible that his work could have been so continuously and vexatiously impeded by the persecution of the jewish christian party. the apostles may not have possessed sufficient influence or authority entirely to control the action of adherents, but it would be folly to suppose that, if unanimity of views had prevailed between them and paul, and a firm and consistent support had been extended to him, such systematic resistance as he everywhere encountered from the party professing to be led by the "pillar" apostles could have been seriously maintained, or that he could have been left alone and unaided to struggle against it. if the relations between paul and the twelve had been such as are intimated in the acts of the apostles, his epistles must have presented undoubted evidence of the fact both negatively and positively they testify the absence of all support, and the existence of antagonistic influence on the part of the elder apostles, and external evidence fully confirms the impression which the epistles produce.( ) { } from any point of view which may be taken, the apocalypse is an important document in connection with this point. if it be accepted as a work of the apostle john--the preponderance of evidence and critical opinion assigns it to him--this book, of course, possesses the greatest value as an indication of his views. if it be merely regarded as a contemporary writing, it still is most interesting as an illustration of the religious feeling of the period. the question is: does the apocalypse contain any reference to the apostle paul, or throw light upon the relations between him and the elder apostles? if it does so, and be the work of one of the [------], nothing obviously could be more { } instructive. in the messages to the seven churches, there are references and denunciations which, in the opinion of many able critics, are directed against the apostle of the gentiles and his characteristic teaching.( ) who but paul and his followers can be referred to in the epistle to the church of ephesus: "i know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear wicked persons: and didst try them which say they are apostles and are not, and didst find them liars"?( ) paul himself informs us not only of his sojourn in ephesus, where he believed that "a great and effectual door" was opened to him, but adds, "there are many adversaries" [------].( ) the foremost charge brought against the churches is that they have those that hold the teaching of balaam, who taught balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of israel, "to eat things offered unto idols."( ) the teaching of paul upon this point is { } well known, cor. viii. ff., x. ff., rom. xiv. ff., and the reference here cannot be mistaken; and when in the epistle to the church of thyatira, after denouncing the teaching "to eat things offered unto idols," the apocalyptist goes on to encourage those who have not this teaching, "who knew not the depths of satan, [------],( ) as they say" the expression of paul himself is taken to denounce his doctrine; for the apostle, defending himself against the attacks of those parties "of cephas" and "of christ" in corinth, writes: "but god revealed (them) to us through his spirit; for the spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of god" [------]--"the depths of satan" rather, retorts the judaistic author of the apocalypse. [------] does not occur elsewhere in the new testament again, in the address to the churches of smyrna and philadelphia, when the writer denounces those "who say that they are jews, and are not, but a synagogue of satan,"( ) whom has he in view but those christians whom paul had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary and the law abrogated? we find paul in the epistle to the corinthians, so often quoted, obliged to defend himself against these judaising parties upon this very point: "are they hebrews? so am i. are they israelites? so am i. are they abraham's seed? so am i."( ) it is manifest that his adversaries had vaunted their own jewish origin as a title of superiority over the apostle of the gentiles. we { } have, however, further evidence of the same attack upon paul regarding this point. epiphanius points out that the ebionites denied that paul was a jew, and asserted that he was born of a gentile father and mother, but that, having gone up to jerusalem, he became a proselyte and submitted to circumcision in the hope of marrying a daughter of the high priest. but afterwards, according to them, enraged at not securing the maiden for his wife, paul wrote against circumcision and the sabbath and the law.( ) the apostle paul, whose constant labour it was to destroy the particularism of the jew, and raise the gentile to full, free, and equal participation with him in the benefits of the new covenant, could not but incur the bitter displeasure of the apocalyptist, for whom the gentiles were, as such, the type of all that was common and unclean. in the utterances of the seer of patmos we seem to hear the expression of all that judaistic hatred and opposition which pursued the apostle who laid the axe to the root of mosaism and, in his efforts to free christianity from trammels which, more than any other, retarded its triumphant development, aroused against himself all the virulence of jewish illiberality and prejudice. the results at which we have arrived might be singularly confirmed by an examination of the writings of the first two centuries, and by observing the attitude { } assumed towards the apostle of the gentiles by such men as justin martyr, papias, hegesippus, and the author of the clementines; but we have already devoted too much space to this subject, and here we must reluctantly leave it. the steps by which christianity was gradually freed from the trammels of judaism and became a religion of unlimited range and universal fitness were clearly not those stated in the acts of the apostles. its emancipation from mosaism was not effected by any liberal action or enlightened guidance on the part of the elder apostles. at the death of their master, the twelve remained closely united to judaism, and evidently were left without any understanding that christianity was a new religion which must displace mosaic institutions, and replace the unbearable yoke of the law by the divine liberty of the gospel. to the last moment regarding which we have any trustworthy information, the twelve, as might have been expected, retained all their early religious customs and all their jewish prejudices. they were simply jews believing that jesus was the messiah; and if the influence of paul enlarged their views upon some minor points, we have no reason to believe that they ever abandoned their belief in the continued obligation of the law, and the necessity of circumcision for full participation in the benefits of the covenant. the author of the acts would have us believe that they required no persuasion, but anticipated paul in the gospel of uncircumcision. it is not within the scope of this work to inquire how paul originally formed his views of christian universalism. once formed, it is easy to understand how rapidly they must have been developed and confirmed by experience amongst { } the gentiles. whilst the twelve still remained in the narrow circle of judaism and could not be moved beyond the ministry of the circumcision, paul, in the larger and freer field of the world, must daily have felt more convinced that the abrogation of the law and the abandonment of circumcision were essential to the extension of christianity amongst the gentiles. he had no easy task, however, to convince others of this, and he never succeeded in bringing his elder colleagues over to his views. to the end of his life, paul had to contend with bigoted and narrow-minded opposition within the christian body, and if his views ultimately triumphed, and the seed which he sowed eventually yielded a rich harvest, he himself did not live to see the day, and the end was attained only by slow and natural changes. the new religion gradually extended beyond the limits of judaism. gentile christians soon outnumbered jewish believers. the twelve whose names were the strength of the judaistic opposition one by one passed away; but, above all, the fall of jerusalem and the dispersion of the christian community secured the success of pauline principles and the universalism of christianity. the church of jerusalem could not bear transplanting. in the uncongenial soil of pella it gradually dwindled away, losing first its influence and soon after its nationality. the divided members of the jewish party, scattered amongst the gentiles, and deprived of their influential leaders, could not long retard the progress of the liberalism which they still continued to oppose and to misrepresent. in a word, the emancipation of christianity was not effected by the twelve, was no work of councils, and no result of dreams; but, receiving its first great impulse from the genius and the energy of paul, its ultimate { } achievement was the result of time and natural development. we have now patiently considered the "acts of the apostles," and although it has in no way been our design exhaustively to examine its contents, we have more than sufficiently done so to enable the reader to understand the true character of the document. the author is unknown, and it is no longer possible to identify him. if he were actually the luke whom the church indicates, our results would not be materially affected; but the mere fact that the writer is unknown is obviously fatal to the acts as a guarantee of miracles. a cycle of supernatural occurrences could scarcely, in the estimation of any rational mind, be established by the statement of an anonymous author, and more especially one who not only does not pretend to have been an eye-witness of most of the miracles, but whose narrative is either uncorroborated by other testimony or inconsistent with itself, and contradicted on many points by contemporary documents. the phenomena presented by the acts of the apostles become perfectly intelligible when we recognize that it is the work of a writer living long after the occurrences related, whose pious imagination furnished the apostolic age with an elaborate system of supernatural agency, far beyond the conception of any other new testament writer, by which, according to his view, the proceedings of the apostles were furthered and directed, and the infant church miraculously fostered. on examining other portions of his narrative, we find that they present the features which the miraculous elements rendered antecedently probable. the speeches attributed to { } different speakers are all cast in the same mould, and betray the composition of one and the same writer. the sentiments expressed are inconsistent with what we know of the various speakers. and when we test the circumstances related by previous or subsequent incidents and by trustworthy documents, it becomes apparent that the narrative is not an impartial statement of facts, but a reproduction of legends or a development of tradition, shaped and coloured according to the purpose or the pious views of the writer. the acts of the apostles, therefore, is not only an anonymous work, but upon due examination its claims to be considered sober and veracious history must be emphatically rejected. it cannot strengthen the foundations of supernatural religion, but, on the contrary, by its profuse and indiscriminate use of the miraculous it discredits miracles, and affords a clearer insight into their origin and fictitious character. part v. the direct evidence for miracles chapter i. the epistles and the apocalypse turning from the acts of the apostles to the other works of the new testament, we shall be able very briefly to dispose of the catholic epistles, the epistle to the hebrews and the apocalypse. the so-called epistles of james, jude, and john, do not contain any evidence which, even supposing them to be authentic, really bears upon our inquiry into the reality of miracles and divine revelation; and the testimony of the apocalypse affects it quite as little. we have already, in examining the fourth gospel, had occasion to say a good deal regarding both the so-called epistles of john and the apocalypse. it is unnecessary to enter upon a more minute discussion of them here. "seven books of the new testament," writes dr. westcott, "as is well known, have been received into the canon on evidence less complete than that by which the others are supported."( ) these are "the epistles of james, jude, peter, and john, to the hebrews, and the apocalypse." we have already furnished the means of judging of the nature of the { } evidence upon which some of the other books have been received into the canon, and the evidence for most of these being avowedly "less complete," its nature may be conceived. works which for a long period were classed amongst the antilegomena, or disputed books, and which only slowly acquired authority as, in the lapse of time, it became more difficult to examine their claims, could not do much to establish the reality of miracles. with regard to the epistle to the hebrews, we may remark that we are freed from any need to deal at length with it, not only by the absence of any specific evidence in its contents, but by the following consideration. if the epistle be not by paul,--and it not only is not his, but does not even pretend to be so,--the author is unknown, and therefore the document has no weight as testimony. on the other hand, if assigned to paul, we shall have sufficient ground in his genuine epistles for considering the evidence of the apostle, and it could not add anything even if the epistle to the hebrews were included in the number. the first epistle of peter might have required more detailed treatment, but we think that little could be gained by demonstrating that the document is not authentic, or showing that, in any case, the evidence which it could furnish is not of any value. on the other hand, we are averse to protract the argument by any elaboration of mere details which can be avoided. if it could be absolutely proved that the apostle peter wrote the epistle circulating under his name, the evidence for miracles would only be strengthened by the fact that, incidentally, the doctrine of the resurrection of jesus is maintained. no historical details are given, and no explanation of the reasons for which the writer believed in it. { } nothing more would be proved than the point that peter himself believed in the resurrection. it would certainly be a matter of very deep interest if we possessed a narrative written by the apostle himself, giving minute and accurate details of the phenomena in consequence of which he believed in so miraculous an event; but since this epistle does nothing more than allow us to infer the personal belief of the writer, unaccompanied by corroborative evidence, we should not gain anything by accepting it as genuine. we are quite willing to assume, without further examination, that the apostle peter in some way believed in the resurrection of his master. for the argument regarding the reality of that stupendous miracle, upon which we are about to enter, this is tantamount to assuming the authenticity of the epistle. coming to the epistles of paul, it will not be necessary to go into the evidence for the various letters in our new testament which are ascribed to him, nor shall we require to state the grounds upon which the authenticity of many of them is denied. accepting the epistles to the galatians, corinthians and romans in the main as genuine compositions of the apostle, the question as to the origin of the rest, so far as our inquiry is concerned, has little or no interest. from these four letters we obtain the whole evidence of paul regarding miracles, and this we now propose carefully to examine. one point in particular demands our fullest attention. it is undeniable that paul preached the doctrine of the resurrection and ascension of jesus, and believed in those events. whilst, therefore, we shall not pass over his supposed testimony for the possession of miraculous powers, we shall chiefly devote our attention to his evidence for the central dogmas of supernatural religion, the resurection and ascension of { } jesus. we shall not, however, limit our examination to the testimony of paul, but, as the climax of the historical argument for miracles, endeavour to ascertain the exact nature of the evidence upon which belief is claimed for the actual occurrence of those stupendous events. for this, our inquiry into the authorship and credibility of the historical books of the new testament has at length prepared us, and it will be admitted that, in subjecting these asserted miracles to calm and fearless scrutiny--untinged by irreverence or disrespect, if personal earnestness and sincere sympathy with those who believe are any safeguards,--the whole theory of christian miracles will be put to its final test. chapter ii. the evidence of paul it is better, before proceeding to examine the testimony of paul for the resurrection, to clear the way by considering his evidence for miracles in general, apart from that specific instance. in an earlier portion of this work( ) the following remark was made: "throughout the new testament, patristic literature, and the records of ecclesiastical miracles, although we have narratives of countless wonderful works performed by others than the writer, and abundant assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the church, there is no instance whatever, that we can remember, in which a writer claims to have himself performed a miracle."( ) it is asserted that this statement is erroneous, and that paul does advance this claim.( ) it may be well to quote the moderate { } words in which a recent able writer states the case, although not with immediate reference to the particular passage which we have quoted. "... in these undoubted writings st. paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by him and by his contemporaries. he reminds the corinthians that 'the signs of an apostle were wrought among them... in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' [------]--the usual words for the higher forms of miracle-- cor. xii. ). he tells the romans that 'he will not dare to speak of any of those things which christ hath not wrought by( ) him to make the gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the spirit of god' [------]. he asks the { } galatians whether 'he that ministereth to them the spirit, and worketh miracles [------] among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (gal. iii. .) in the first epistle to the corinthians, he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the christian economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts of healing ( cor. xii. , , )."( ) we shall presently examine these passages, but we must first briefly deal with the question whether, taken in any sense, they furnish an instance "in which a writer claims to have himself performed _a miracle_." it must be obvious to any impartial reader, that the remark made in the course of our earlier argument precisely distinguished the general "assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the church," from the explicit claim to have personally performed "a miracle" in the singular. if, therefore, it were even admitted "that st. paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course, _to which a passing reference is sufficient_," such "incidental allusions" would not in the least degree contradict the statement made, but, being the only instances producible, would in fact completely justify it. general and vague references of this kind have by no means the force of a definite claim to have performed some particular miracle. they partake too much of that indiscriminate impression of the possession and common exercise of miraculous powers which characterized the "age of miracles" to have any force. the desired instance, which is not forthcoming, and to which alone reference was made, was a case in which, instead of vague expressions, a writer, stating with precision the particulars, related that he himself had, { } for instance, actually raised some person from the dead. as we then added, even if apostles had chronicled their miracles, the argument for their reality would not have been much advanced; but it is a curious phenomenon not undeserving of a moment's attention that apologists can only refer to such general passages, and cannot quote an instance in which a specific miracle is related in detail by the person who is supposed to have performed it. passing references on a large scale to the exercise of miraculous power, whilst betraying a suspicious familiarity with phenomena of an exceptional nature, offer too much latitude for inaccuracy and imagination to have the weight of an affirmation in which the mind has been sobered by concentration to details. "signs and wonders," indefinitely alluded to, may seem much more imposing and astonishing than they really are, and it may probably be admitted by everyone that, if we knew the particulars of the occurrences which are thus vaguely indicated and which may have been considered miraculous in a superstitious age, they might to us possibly appear no miracles at all. general expressions are liable to an exaggeration from which specific allegations arc more frequently free. if it be conceded that the apostle paul fully believed in the possession by himself and the church of divine charismata, the indefinite expression of that belief, in any form, must not be made equivalent to an explicit claim to have performed a certain miracle, the particulars of which are categorically stated. passing from this, however, to the more general question, the force of some of these objections will be better understood when we consider the passages in the epistles which are quoted as expressing paul's belief in miracles, and endeavour to ascertain his real views: what it is he { } actually says regarding miracles; and what are the phenomena which are by him considered to be miraculous. we shall not waste time in considering how, partly through the influence of the septuagint, the words [------], and [------] came to be used in a peculiar manner by new testament writers to indicate miracles. it may, however, be worth while to pause for a moment to ascertain the sense in which paul, who wrote before there was a "new testament" at all, usually employed these words. in the four epistles of paul the word [------] occurs six times. in rom. iv. abraham is said to have received the "sign [------] of circumcision," in which there is nothing miraculous. in cor. i. it is said: "since both jews require signs [------]( ) and greeks seek after wisdom;" and again, cor. xiv. : "wherefore the tongues are for a sign [------] not to the believing but to the unbelieving," &c. we shall have more to say regarding these passages presently, but just now we merely quote them to show the use of the word. the only other places in which it occurs( ) are those pointed out, and which are the subject of our discussion. in rom. xv. the word is used in the plural and combined with [------]: "in the power of signs and wonders" [------]; and in the second passage, cor. xii. , it is employed twice, "the signs [------] of the apostle "and the second time again in combination with [------] and [------], "both in signs" [------], &c. the word [------] is only twice met with in paul's writings; that is to say, in rom. xv. and cor. xii. ; and on both occasions, as we { } have just mentioned, it is combined with [------].( ) on the other hand, paul uses [------] no less than times( ) and, leaving for the present out of the question the passages cited, upon every occasion, except one, perhaps, the word has the simple signification of "power." the one exception is rom. viii. , where it occurs in the plural: [------] "powers," the apostle expressing his persuasion that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of god, "nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers [------], nor height, nor depth," &c., &c. in cor. xiv. , where the authorized version renders the original: "therefore, if i know not the meaning [------] of the voice," it has still the same sense. before discussing the passages before us we must point out that there is so much doubt, at least, regarding the authenticity of the last two chapters of the epistle to the romans that the passage, rom. xv. , , can scarcely be presented as evidence on such a point as the reality of miracles. we do not intend to debate the matter closely, but shall merely state a few of the facts of the case and pass on, for it would not materially affect our argument if the passage were altogether beyond suspicion. the epistle, in our authorized text, ends with a long and somewhat involved doxology, xvi. - ; and we may point out here that it had already seemed to be brought to a close not only at the end of chapter xv. ( ) but also at xvi. . the doxology, xvi. - , which { } more particularly demands our attention, is stated by origen( ) to be placed in some mss at the end of ch. xiv.; and a similar statement is made by cyril, chrysostom, theodoret, theophylact and others. we find these verses actually so placed in l, and in upwards of out of cursive mss. of byzantine origin, in an account of ancient mss. in cod. , in most of the greek lection-aries, in the slavonic and later syriac versions as also in the gothic, arabic, (in the polyglot and triglot text) and some mss. of the armenian. they are inserted both at the end of xiv. and at the end of the epistle by the alexandrian codex,( ) one of the most ancient manuscripts extant, and by some other mss.( ) now, how came this doxology to be placed at all at the end of chapter xiv.? the natural inference is that it was so placed because that was the end of the epistle. subsequently, chapters xv. and xvi. being added, it is supposed that the closing doxology was removed from the former position and placed at the end of the appended matter. this inference is supported by the important fact that, as we learn from origen,( ) the last two { } chapters of the epistle to the romans, including the doxology (xvi. - ) did not exist in marcion's text, the most ancient form of it of which we have any knowledge. tertullian, who makes no reference to these two chapters, speaks of the passage, rom. xiv. , as at the close (in clausula) of the epistle,( ) and he does not call any attention to their absence from marcion's epistle. is it not reasonable to suppose that they did not form part of his copy? in like manner irenæus, who very frequently quotes from the rest of the epistle, nowhere shows acquaintance with these chapters. the first writer who distinctly makes use of any part of them is clement of alexandria. it has been argued both that marcion omitted the two chapters because they contain what was opposed to his views, and because they had no dogmatic matter to induce him to retain them; but, whilst the two explanations destroy each other, neither of them is more than a supposition to account for the absence of what, it may with equal propriety be conjectured, never formed part of his text. the external testimony, however, does not stand alone, but is supported by very strong internal evidence. we shall only indicate one or two points, leaving those who desire to go more deeply into the discussion to refer to works more particularly concerned with it, which we shall sufficiently indicate. it is a very singular thing that all, who, when he wrote this epistle had never been in rome, should be intimately acquainted with so many persons there. the fact that there was much intercourse { } between rome and other countries by no means accounts for the simultaneous presence there of so many of the apostle's personal friends. aquila and priscilla, who are saluted (xvi. ), were a short time before ( cor. xvi. ) in ephesus.( ) it may, moreover, be remarked as a suggestive fact that when, according to the acts (xxviii. ff.), paul very soon afterwards arrived in rome, most of these friends seem to have disappeared,( ) and the chief men of the jews called together by paul do not seem to be aware of the existence of a christian body at rome.( ) another point is connected with the very passage which has led to this discussion, xv. , read: . "for i will not dare to speak of any of those things which christ hath not wrought by me, in order to [------] the obedience of the gentiles, by word and deed, . in the power of signs and wonders [------] in the power of the spirit [------]; so that from jerusalem and round about unto illyricum, i have fully preached the gospel of christ;" &c. the statement that "from jerusalem" he had "fully preached" the gospel is scarcely in agreement with the statement in the epistle to the galatians i. - , ii. ff moreover, there is no confirmation anywhere of the apostle's having preached as far as illyricum, which was then almost beyond the limits of civilization. baur suggests that in making his ministry commence at jerusalem, there is too evident a concession made to the jewish christians, according to whom every preacher of the gospel must naturally commence his career at the holy city. it would detain us much too long to enter upon an analysis of these two { } chapters, and to show the repetition in them of what has already been said in the earlier part of the epistle; the singular analogies presented with the epistles to the corinthians, not of the nature of uniformity of style, but of imitation; the peculiarity of the mention of a journey to spain as the justification of a passing visit to rome, and perhaps a further apology for even writing a letter to the church there which another had founded; the suspicious character of the names which are mentioned in the various clauses of salutation; and to state many other still more important objections which various critics have advanced, but which would require more elaborate explanation than can possibly be given here. it will suffice for us to mention that the phenomena presented by the two chapters are so marked and curious that for a century they have largely occupied the attention of writers of all shades of opinion, and called forth very elaborate theories to account for them; the apparent necessity for which in itself shows the insecure position of the passage. semler,( ) without denying the pauline authorship of the two chapters, considered they did not properly belong to the epistle to the romans. he supposed xvi. - to have been merely for the messenger who carried the epistle, as a list of the persons to whom salutations were to be given, and to these, ch. xv. was to be specially delivered and considered ch. xv. to be a separate letter, addressed to the leaders of the roman church, as an epistle to the community in general, being sealed up and ready for any opportunity of transmission, but none presenting itself before { } his arrival in corinth, the apostle there, upon an additional sheet, wrote xvi. and entrusted it with the letter to phoebe. eichhorn( ) supposed that the parchment upon which the epistle was written was finished at xiv. ; and, as paul and his scribe had only a small sheet at hand, the doxology only, xvi. - , was written upon the one side of it, and on the other the greetings and the apostolic benediction, xvi. - , and thus the letter was completed; but, as it could not immediately be forwarded, the apostle added a fly-leaf with ch. xv. bertholdt( ) guericke( ) and others adopted similar views more or less modified, representing the close of the epistle to have been formed by successive postscripts. more recently, renan( ) has affirmed the epistle to be a circular letter addressed to churches in rome, ephesus, and other places, to each of which only certain portions were transmitted with appropriate salutations and endings, which have all been collected into the one epistle in the form in which we have it. david schulz conjectured that xvi. - was an epistle written from rome to the church at ephesus; and this theory was substantially adopted by ewald,--who held that xvi. - was part of a lost epistle to ephesus,--and by many other critics.( ) of course the virtual authenticity of the xv.-xvi. chapters, nearly or exactly as they are, is affirmed by many writers. baur, however, after careful investigation, pronounced the two chapters inauthentic, and in this he is followed by able critics.( ) under all these circumstances it is obvious { } that we need not occupy ourselves much with the passage in rom. xv. , , but our argument will equally apply to it. in order to complete this view of the materials we may simply mention, as we pass on, that the authenticity of cor. xii. has likewise been impugned by a few critics, and the verse, or at least the words [------], as well as rom. xv. , declared an interpolation.( ) this cannot, however, so far as existing evidence goes, be demonstrated; and, beyond the mere record of the fact, this conjecture does not here require further notice. it may be well, before proceeding to the epistles to the corinthians, which furnish the real matter for discussion, first to deal with the passage cited from gal iii. , which is as follows:--"he then that supplieth to you the spirit and worketh powers [------] within you [------], (doeth he it) from works of law or from hearing of faith?"( ) the authorised version reads: "and worketh miracles among you;" but this cannot be maintained, and [------] must be rendered "within you," the [------] certainly retaining its natural signification when used with [------], the primary meaning of which is itself to in-work. the vast majority of critics of all schools agree in this view.( ) there is an evident reference to iii , { } and to the reception of the spirit, here further characterised as producing such effects within the minds of those who receive it,( ) the worker who gives the spirit being god. the opinion most commonly held is that reference is here made to the "gifts" [------], regarding which the apostle elsewhere speaks,( ) and which we shall presently discuss, but this is by no means certain and cannot be determined. it is equally probable that he may refer to the spiritual effect produced upon the souls of the galatians by the gospel which he so frequently represents as a "power" of god. in any case, it is clear that there is no external miracle referred to here, and even if allusion to charismata be understood we have yet to ascertain precisely what these were. we shall endeavour to discover whether there was anything in the least degree miraculous in these "gifts," but there is no affirmation in this passage which demands special attention, and whatever general significance it { } may have will be met when considering the others which are indicated. the first passage in the epistles to the corinthians, which is pointed out as containing the testimony of paul both to the reality of miracles in general and to the fact that he himself performed them, is the following, cor. xii. : "truly the signs [------] of the apostle were wrought in you [------] in all patience, both in signs and wonders and powers [------]"( ) we have to justify two departures in this rendering from that generally received. the first of these is the adoption of "wrought in you," instead of "wrought among you" and the second the simple use of "powers" for [------], instead of "mighty works." we shall take the second first we have referred to every passage except cor. xii. , , , in which paul makes use of the word [------], and fortunately they are sufficiently numerous to afford us a good insight into his practice. it need not be said that the natural sense of [------] is in no case "mighty works" or miracles, and that such an application of the greek word is peculiar to the new testament and, subsequently, to patristic literature. there is, however, no ground for attributing this use of the word to paul. it is not so used in the septuagint, and it is quite evident that the apostle does not employ it to express external effects or works, but spiritual phenomena or potentiality. in the passage, gal. iii. , which we have just discussed, where the word occurs in the plural, as here, it is understood to express "powers." we may quote the rendering of that passage by the bishop of gloucester: { } "he then, _i say_, that ministereth to you the spirit and worketh _mighty_ powers within you, _doeth he it_ by the works of the law or by the report of faith?"( ) why "mighty" should be inserted it is difficult to understand, but the word is rightly printed in italics to show that it is not actually expressed in the greek. "what was the exact nature of these 'powers'... it is impossible to determine," observes another scholar quoted above,( ) on the same passage. in cor. xii. , , , where the plural [------] again occurs, the intention to express "powers"( ) and not external results--miracles--is perfectly clear, the word being in the last two verses used alone to represent the "gifts." in all of these passages the word is the representative of the "powers" and not of the "effects."( ) this interpretation is rendered more clear by, and at the same time confirms, the preceding phrase, "were wrought in you "[------]. 'powers' [------], as in gal. iii. , are worked "within you," and the rendering of that passage being so settled, it becomes authoritative for this. if, however, direct confirmation of paul's meaning be required we have it in rom. vii. , where we find the same verb used with [------] in this sense: "but sin.... wrought in me [------] all manner of coveting," &c.; and with this may also be compared cor. vii. .... "what earnestness it wrought in you" [------]( ) { } [------]. it was thus paul's habit to speak of spiritual effects wrought "within," and as he referred to the "powers" [------] worked "within" the souls of the galatians, so he speaks of them here as "wrought in" the corinthians. it will become clear as we proceed that the addition to [------] of "signs and wonders" does not in the least affect this interpretation. in cor. xiv. , the apostle speaks of the gift of "tongues" as "a sign" [------]. upon the supposition that paul was affirming the actual performance of miracles by himself, how extraordinary becomes the statement that they "were wrought in all patience," for it is manifest that "in all patience" [------] does not form part of the signs, as some have argued, but must be joined to the verb [------].( ) it may be instructive to quote a few words of olshausen upon the point:--"the [------] is not altogether easy. it certainly cannot be doubtful that it is to be joined to [------] and not to what follows; but for what reason does paul here make it directly prominent that he wrought his signs in all patience? it seems to me probable that in this there may be a reproof to the corinthians, who, in spite of such signs, still showed themselves wavering regarding the authority of the apostle. in such a position, paul would say, he had, patiently waiting, allowed his light to shine amongst them, certain of ultimate triumph."( ) this will hardly be accepted by any one as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, which is a real one if it be assumed that paul, claiming to have performed { } miracles, wrought them "in all patience." besides the matter is complicated, and the claim to have himself performed a miracle still more completely vanishes, when we consider the fact that the passive construction of the sentence does not actually represent paul as the active agent by whom the signs were wrought. "truly the signs of the apostle were wrought," but how wrought? clearly he means by the spirit, as he distinctly states to the gala- tians. to them "jesus christ (the messiah) was fully set forth crucified," and he asks them: was it from works of the law or from hearing in faith the gospel thus preached to them that they "received the spirit"? and that he who supplies the spirit "and worketh powers" in them does so? from faith, of course.( ) the meaning of paul, therefore, was this: his gospel was preached among them "in all patience," which being received by the hearing of faith, the spirit was given to them, and the signs of the apostle were thus wrought among them. the representation is made throughout the acts that the apostles lay their hands on those who believe, and they receive the holy spirit and speak with tongues. if any special "sign of the apostle" can be indicated at all, it is this; and in illustration we may point to one statement made in the acts. philip, the evangelist, who was not an apostle, is represented as going into samaria and preaching the messiah to the samaritans, who give heed to the things spoken by him, and multitudes are baptized (viii. , , ), but there was not the outpouring of the holy spirit which usually accompanied the apostolic baptism. "and the apostles in jerusalem, having heard that samaria had received the word of god, sent unto them peter and john; who { } when they came down prayed for them that they might receive the holy spirit--for as yet he had fallen upon none of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the lord jesus. then laid they (the apostles) their hands on them and they received the holy spirit."( ) we may further refer to the episode at ephesus (acts xix. iff.) where paul finds certain disciples who, having only been baptized into john's baptism, had not received the holy spirit, nor even heard whether there was a holy spirit, (xix. .) "and paul having laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came on them, and they were speaking with tongues and prophesying." when we examine paul's epistles to the corinthians we find ample assurance that the interpretation here given of this passage is correct, and that he does not refer, as apologists have maintained, to miracles wrought by himself, but to the charismata, which were supposed to have been bestowed upon the corinthians who believed, and which thus were the signs of his apostleship. the very next verse to that which is before us shows this: "truly the signs of the apostle were wrought in you in all patience.... . for [------] what is there wherein ye were inferior to the other churches, except it be that i myself was not burdensome to you?" the mere performance of signs and wonders did not constitute their equality; but in the possession of the charismata,--regarding which so much is said in the first epistle, and which were the result of his preaching,--they were not inferior to the other churches, and only inferior, paul says with his fine irony, in not having, like the other churches with their apostles, been called upon to acquire the merit of { } bearing his charges. what could be more distinct than the apostle's opening address in the first epistle: "i thank my god always, on your behalf, for the grace of god which was given you in christ jesus; that in everything ye were enriched by him (at the time of their conversion( ), in all utterance and in all knowledge: even as the testimony of christ was confirmed in you: _so that ye come behind in no gift_ [------]," &c. for this reason they were not inferior to the other churches, and those were the signs of the apostle which were wrought in them. paul very distinctly declares the nature of his ministry amongst the corinthians and the absence of other "signs": cor. i. f. "since both jews demand signs [------] and greeks seek after wisdom, but we [------] preach christ crucified, unto jews a stumbling-block and unto gentiles foolishness, but unto those who are called, both jews and greeks, christ the power [------] of god and the wisdom of god." the contrast is here clearly drawn between the requirement of jews (signs) and of greeks (wisdom) and paul's actual ministry: no signs, but a scandal [------] to the jew, and no wisdom, but foolishness to the greek, but this word of the cross [------] "to us who are being saved is the power [------] of god" (i. ).( ) the apostle tells us what he considers the "sign of the apostle," when, more directly defending himself against the opponents who evidently denied his apostolic claims, he says vehemently: cor. ix. flf. "am i not free? am i not an apostle? have i not seen jesus our lord? _are not ye my work in the lord?_ if i be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless i am to you: _for the seal { } [------] of my apostleship are ye in the lord_."( ) it cannot, we think, be doubted, when the passage cor. xii. is attentively considered, that paul does not refer to external miracles performed by him, but to the charismata which he supposed to be conferred upon the corinthian christians on their acceptance of the gospel which the apostle preached. these charismata, however, are advanced as miraculous, and the passages cor. xii. , , are quoted in support of the statement we are discussing, and these now demand our attention. it may be well at once to give the verses which are referred to, and in which it is said that paul "goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the christian economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts of healing" ( cor. xii. , , ). it is necessary for the full comprehension of the case that we should quote the context: xii. . "now there are diversities of gifts [------], but the same spirit; . and there are diversities of ministries [------], and the same lord; . and there are diversities of workings [------], but it is the same god who worketh the all in all [------]: . but to each is given the manifestation of the spirit [------] for profit; . for to one is given by the spirit a word of wisdom [------]; to another a word of knowledge [------] according to the same spirit; . to another faith [------] in the same spirit, to another gifts of healings [------] in the one spirit; . to another (inward) workings of powers [------] { } [------]; to another prophecy [------]; to another discerning of spirits [------]; to another kinds of tongues [------]; to another interpretation of tongues [------]; . but all these worketh [------] the one and the same spirit, dividing to each severally as he wills." after illustrating this by showing the mutual dependence of the different members and senses of the body, the apostle proceeds: v. . "and god set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that powers [------], after that gifts of healings [------], helpings [------], governings [------], kinds of tongues [------]. . are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all powers [------]? . have all gifts of healings [------]? do all speak with tongues [------]? do all interpret [------]?" before we commence an examination of this interesting and important passage, it is essential that we should endeavour to disabuse our minds of preconceived ideas. commentators are too prone to apply to the apostle's remarks a system of interpretation based upon statements made by later and less informed writers, and warped by belief in the reality of a miraculous element pervading all apostolic times, which have been derived mainly from post-apostolic narratives. what do we really know of the phenomena supposed to have characterized the apostolic age, and which were later, and are now, described as miraculous? with the exception of what we glean from the writings of paul, we know absolutely nothing from any contemporary writer and eye-witness. in the gospels and in the acts of the apostles, we have detailed accounts of many miracles said { } to have been performed by the apostles and others; but these narratives were all written at a much later period, and by persons who are unknown, and most of whom are not even affirmed to have been eye-witnesses.( ) in the acts of the apostles, we have an account of some of the very charismata referred to by paul in the passage above quoted, and we shall thus have the advantage of presently comparing the two accounts. we must, however, altogether resist any attempt to insert between the lines of the apostle's writing ideas and explanations derived from the author of the acts and from patristic literature, and endeavour to understand what it is he himself says and intends to say. it must not be supposed that we in the slightest degree question the fact that the apostle paul believed in the reality of supernatural intervention in mundane affairs, or that he asserted the actual occurrence of certain miracles. our desire is as far as possible to ascertain what paul himself has to say upon specific phenomena, now generally explained as miraculous, and thus, descending from vague generalities to more distinct statements, to ascertain the value of his opinion regarding the character of such phenomena. it cannot fail to be instructive to determine something of the nature of charismata from an eye-witness who believed them to have been supernatural. his account, as we have seen, is the most precious evidence of the church to the reality of the miraculous. the first point which must be observed in connection with the charismata referred to by paul in the passage before us is that, whilst there are diversities amongst them, all the phenomena described are ascribed to it is suggestive that the curious passage mk. xvi. -- is not even by the author of the second gospel, but a later addition. { } "one and the same spirit dividing to each severally as he wills;" and, consequently, that, although there may be differences in their form and value, a supernatural origin is equally assigned to all the "gifts" enumerated. what then are these charismata? "a word of wisdom," "a word of knowledge," and "faith" are the first three mentioned. what the precise difference was, in paul's meaning, between the utterance of wisdom [------] and of knowledge [------] it is impossible now with certainty to say, nor is it very essential for us to inquire. the two words are combined in rom. xi. : "o the depths of the riches and wisdom [------] and knowledge [------] of god!" and in this very epistle some varying use is made of both words. paul tells the corinthians ( , i. ) that christ did not send him "in wisdom of word "[------] or utterance: and (ii. ) "not with excellency of word or wisdom" [------], cf. ii. ); and further on he says (i. ) that christ jesus "was made unto us wisdom [------] from god." the most suggestive expressions,( ) however, are the following, we think: cor. ii. . "but we speak wisdom [------] among the perfect, yet not the wisdom [------] of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, that come to nought, . but we speak god's wisdom [------] in mystery, the hidden wisdom, which god ordained before the ages unto our glory, . which none of the rulers of this age has known, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the lord of glory. . but as it is written, 'what eye saw not/ &c. &c. . but unto us god revealed them through the spirit....... .... { } even so also the things of god knoweth no one but the spirit of god. . but we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from god, that we might know the things that are freely given us by god; . which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual things to the spiritual"( ) [------]. it is quite clear from all the antecedent context that paul's preaching was specially the messiah crucified, "christ the power of god and the wisdom [------] of god," and we may conclude reasonably that the [------] of our passage was simply the eloquent utterance of this doctrine. in like manner, we may get some insight into the meaning which paul attached to the word "knowledge" [------]. it will be remembered that at the very opening of the first epistle to the corinthians paul expresses his thankfulness that in everything they were enriched in christ jesus: i. . "in all utterance [------] and in all knowledge [------], . even as the testimony of the christ was confirmed in you;" that is to say, according to commentators, by these very charismata. later, speaking of "tongues," he says ( cor. xiv. ): "... what shall i profit you, except i shall speak to you either in revelation or in knowledge [------], or in prophecy, or in teaching?" we obtain a clearer insight into his meaning in the second epistle, in the passage cor. ii. - , and still more in iv. - and x. , where he describes metaphorically his weapons as not carnal, but strong through god, "casting down reasonings and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of god, and bringing into { } _captivity_ every thought to the obedience of the christ;" and if we ventured to offer an opinion, it would be that paul means by [------] simply christian theology. we merely offer this as a passing suggestion. little need be said with regard to the gift of "faith" (marts), which is perfectly intelligible. apologists argue that by these three gifts" some supernatural form of wisdom, knowledge, and faith is expressed, and we shall have something more to say on the point presently; but here we merely point out that there is no ground whatever for such an assertion except the fact that the apostle ascribes to them a supernatural origin, or, in fact, believes in the inspiration of such qualities. all that can be maintained is that paul accounts for the possession of characteristics which we now know to be natural, by asserting that they are the direct gift of the holy spirit. there is not the faintest evidence to show that these natural capabilities did not antecedently exist in the corinthians, and were not merely stimulated into action in christian channels by the religious enthusiasm and zeal accompanying their conversion; but, on the contrary, every reason to believe this to be the case, as we shall further see.( ) in fact, according to the apostolic church, every quality was a supernatural gift, and all ability or excellence in practical life directly emanated from the action of the holy spirit. we may now proceed to "gifts of healings" [------]( ) which it will be noted are doubly in the plural, { } indicating, as is supposed, a variety of special gifts, each having reference probably to special diseases. what is there to show that there was anything more miraculous in "gifts of healings" than in the possession of an utterance of wisdom, an utterance of knowledge, or faith? nothing whatever. on the contrary, everything, from the unvarying experience of the world, to the inferences which we shall be able to draw from the whole of this information regarding the charismata, shows that there was no miraculous power of healing either possessed or exercised. reference is frequently made to the passage in the so-called epistle of james as an illustration of this, v. : "is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, having anointed him with oil in the name of the lord: . and the prayer of faith shall save the afflicted, and the lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." the context, however, not only shows that in this there is no allusion to any gift of healing or miraculous power, but seems to ignore the existence of any such gift. the epistle continues: v. . "confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray for one another that ye may be healed. the supplication of a righteous man availeth much when it is working." and then the successful instance of the prayer of elijah that it might not rain and again that it might rain is given. the passage is merely an assertion of the efficacy of prayer, and if, as is not unfrequently done, it be argued that the gifts of healings were probably applied by means of earnest prayer for the sick, it may be said that this is the only "gift" which is supposed to have descended to our times. it does not require much argument, however, to show that the reality of a miraculous gift cannot be demonstrated { } by appealing to the objective efficacy of prayer. we may, in passing, refer apologists who hold the authenticity of the epistles to the philippians and to timothy to indications which do not quite confirm the supposition that a power of miraculous healing actually existed in the apostolic church. in the epistle to the philippians, ii. ff., paul is represented as sending epaphroditus to them (v. ) "since he was longing after you all and was distressed because ye heard that he was sick. . for, indeed, he was sick nigh unto death; but god had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, that i might not have sorrow upon sorrow. i sent him, therefore, the more anxiously, that, when ye see him, ye may rejoice again, and that i may be the less sorrowful." the anxiety felt by the philippians, and the whole language of the writer, in this passage, are rather inconsistent with the knowledge that miraculous power of healing was possessed by the church, and of course by paul, which would naturally have been exerted for one in whom so many were keenly interested. then, in tim. iv. , the writer says: "trophimus i left at miletus sick." if miraculous powers of healing existed, why were they not exerted in this case? if they were exerted and failed for special reasons, why are these not mentioned? it is unfortunate that there is so little evidence of the application of these gifts. on the other hand, we may suggest that medical art scarcely existed at that period in such communities, and that the remedies practised admirably lent themselves to the theory of "gifts" of healings, rather than to any recognition of the fact that the accurate diagnosis of disease and successful treatment of it can only be the result of special study and experience. the next gift mentioned is (v. ) "workings of powers" { } [------] very unwarrantably rendered in our "authorized" version "the working of miracles." we have already said enough regarding paul's use of [------]. the phrase before us would be even better rendered in-or inward-workings of powers( ) and the use made of [------] by paul throughout his epistles would confirm this. it may be pointed out that as the gifts just referred to are for "healings" it is difficult to imagine any class of "miracles" which could well be classed under a separate head as the special "working of miracles" contemplated by apologists. infinitely the greater number of miracles related in the gospels and acts are "healings" of disease. is it possible to suppose that paul really indicated by this expression a distinct order of "miracles" properly so called? certainly not neither the words themselves used by paul, properly understood, nor the context permit us to suppose that he referred to the working of miracles at all. we have no intention of conjecturing what these "powers" were supposed to be; it is sufficient that we show they cannot rightly be exaggerated into an assertion of the power of working miracles. it is much more probable that, in the expression, no external working by the gifted person is implied at all, and that the gift referred to "in-workings of powers" within his own mind, producing the ecstatic state, with its usual manifestations, or those visions and supposed revelations to which paul himself was subject. demonaics, or persons supposed to be possessed of evil spirits, were called [------] and it is easy to conceive how anyone under strong religious { } impressions, at that epoch of most intense religious emotion, might, when convulsed by nervous or mental excitement, be supposed the subject of inward workings of powers supernaturally imparted. every period of religious zeal has been marked by such phenomena.( ) these conclusions are further corroborated by the next gifts enumerated. the first of these is "prophecy" [------], by which is not intended the mere foretelling of events, but speaking "unto men edification and exhortation and comfort," as the apostle himself says (xiv. ); and an illustration of this may be pointed out in acts iv. where the name barnabas = "son of prophecy," being interpreted is said to be "son of exhortation" [------]. to this follows the "discerning (or judging) of spirits" [------], a gift which, if we are to judge by paul's expressions elsewhere, was simply the exercise of natural intelligence and discernment. in an earlier part of the first epistle, rebuking the corinthians for carrying their disputes before legal tribunals, he says, vi. : "is it so that there is not even one wise man among you who shall be able to discern [------] between his brethren?" again, in xi. , "but if we discerned [------] we should not be judged [------]" (cf vv. , ), and in xiv. , "let prophets speak two or three, and let the others discern" [------]. we reserve the "kinds of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues" for separate treatment, and proceed to vv. ff. in which, after illustrating his meaning by the analogy of the body, the apostle resumes his { } observations upon the charismata, and it is instructive to consider the rank he ascribes to the various gifts. he classes them: "first, apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that powers, after that gifts of healings, helpings, governings, kinds of tongues." these so-called miraculous gifts are here placed in a lower class than those of exhortation and teaching, which is suggestive; for it is difficult to suppose that even a man like paul could have regarded the possession of such palpable and stupendous power as the instantaneous and miraculous healing of disease, or the performance of other miracles, below the gift of teaching or exhortation. it is perfectly intelligible that the practice of medicine as it was then understood, and the skill which might have been attained in particular branches of disease by individuals, not to speak of those who may have been supposed to be performing miracles when they dealt with cases of hysteria or mental excitement, might appear to the apostle much inferior to a gift for imparting spiritual instruction and admonition; but the actual possession of supernatural power, the actual exercise of what was believed to be the personal attribute of god, must have been considered a distinction more awful and elevated than any gift of teaching. it will be noticed also that other charismata are here introduced, whilst "discerning of spirits" is omitted. the new gifts, "helpings" and "governings," have as little a miraculous character about them as any that have preceded them. is it not obvious that all special ability, all official capacity, is simply represented as a divine gift, and regarded as a "manifestation of the spirit?" it is important in the highest degree to remember that the supposed miraculous charismata are not merely conferred upon a few persons, but are bestowed upon all { } the members of the apostolic church.( ) "the extraordinary charismata which the apostles conferred through their imposition of hands," writes dr. von dollinger, "were so diffused and distributed, that nearly every one, or at any rate many, temporarily at least, had a share in one gift or another. this was a solitary case in history, which has never since repeated itself, and which, in default of experience, we can only approximately picture to ourselves. one might say: the metal of the church was still glowing, molten, formless, and presented altogether another aspect than, since then, in the condition of the cold and hardened casting."( ) the apologetic representation of the case is certainly unique in history and, therefore, in its departure from all experience might, one might have thought, have excited suspicion. difficult as it is to picture such a state, it is worth while to endeavour to do so to a small extent. let us imagine communities of christians, often of considerable importance, in all the larger cities as well as in smaller towns, all or most of the members of which were endowed with supernatural { } gifts, and, amongst others, with power to heal diseases and to perform miracles; all the intellectual and religious qualities requisite for the guidance, edification, and government of the communities supplied abundantly and specially by the holy spirit; the ordinary dependence of society on the natural capacity and power of its leaders dispensed with, and every possible branch of moral culture and physical comfort provided with inspired and miraculously-gifted ministries; the utterance of wisdom and knowledge, exhortation and teaching, workings of healings, discernment of spirits, helpings, governings, kinds of tongues supernaturally diffused throughout the community by god himself. as a general rule, communities have to do as well as they can without such help, and eloquent instructors and able administrators do not generally fail them. the question, therefore, intrudes itself: why were ordinary and natural means so completely set aside, and the qualifications which are generally found adequate for the conduct and regulation of life supplanted by divine charismata? at least, we may suppose that communities endowed with such supernatural advantages, and guided by the direct inspiration of the holy spirit, must have been distinguished in every way from the rest of humanity, and must have presented a spectacle of the noblest life, free from the weakness and inconsistency of the world, and betraying none of the moral and intellectual frailties of ordinary society. at the very least, and without exaggeration, communities in every member of which there existed some supernatural manifestation of the holy spirit might be expected to show very marked superiority and nobility of character. when we examine the epistles of paul and other ancient documents, we find anything but supernatural { } qualities in the churches supposed to be endowed with such miraculous gifts. on the contrary, it is scarcely possible to exaggerate the intensely human character of the conduct of such communities, their fickleness, the weakness of their fidelity to the gospel of paul, their wavering faith, and the ease and rapidity with which they are led astray, their petty strifes and discords; their party spirit, their almost indecent abuse of some of their supposed gifts, such as "tongues," for which paul rebukes them so severely. the very epistles, in fact, in which we read of the supernatural endowments and organization of the church are full of evidence that there was nothing supernatural in them. the primary cause, apparently, for which the first letter was written to the corinthians was the occurrence of divisions and contentions amongst them (i. ff.), parties of paul, of apollos, of cephas, of christ, which make the apostle give thanks (i. ) that he had baptized but few of them, that no one might say that they were baptized into his name. paul had not been able to speak to them as spiritual but as carnal, mere babes in christ (iii. f.); he fed them with milk, not meat, for they were not yet able, "nor even now are ye able," he says, "for ye are yet carnal. for whereas there is among you envying and strife; are ye not carnal?" he continues in the same strain throughout the letter, admonishing them in no flattering terms. speaking of his sending timothy to them, he says (iv. f.): "but some of you were puffed up, as though i were not coming to you; but i will come to you shortly, if it be the lord's will, and will know, not the speech of them who are puffed up, but the power." there is serious sin amongst them, which they show no readiness to purge { } away. moreover these corinthians have lawsuits with each other (vi. ff.), and, instead of taking advantage of those supernatural charismata, they actually take their causes for decision before the uninspired tribunals of the heathen rather than submit them to the judgment of the saints. their own members, who have gifts of wisdom and of knowledge, discerning of spirits and governings, have apparently so little light to throw upon the regulation of social life, that the apostle has to enter into minute details for their admonition and guidance. he has even to lay down rules regarding the head-dresses of women in the churches (xi. ff.). even in their very church assemblies there are divisions of a serious character amongst them (xi. ff.). they misconduct themselves in the celebration of the lord's supper, for they make it, as it were, their own supper, "and one is hungry and another is drunken." "what!" he indignantly exclaims, "have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of god?" to the galatians paul writes, marvelling that they are so soon removing from him that called them in the grace of christ unto a different gospel (i. ). "o foolish galatians," he says (iii. ), "who bewitched you?" in that community also, opposition to paul and denial of his authority had become powerful. if we turn to other ancient documents, the epistles to the seven churches do not present us with a picture of supernatural perfection in those communities, though doubtless, like the rest, they had received these gifts. the other epistles of the new testament depict a state of things which by no means denotes any extraordinary or abnormal condition of the members. we may quote a short passage to show that we do not strain { } this representation unduly. "but certainly," says dr. von dollinger, "in spite of a rich outpouring of spiritual gifts vouchsafed to it, a community could fall into wanton error. paul had in corinth, contemporaneously with his description of the charismatic state of the church there, to denounce sad abuses. in the galatian community, judaistic seduction, and the darkening of christian doctrine through the delusion as to the necessity of the observance of the law, had so much increased that the apostle called them fools and senseless, but at the same time he appealed to the proof which was presented by the spiritual gifts and miraculous powers, in which they had participated not through the observance of the law, but through faith in christ (gal. iii. , ). now at that time the charismata of teaching and knowledge must already have been weakened or extinguished in these communities, otherwise so strong an aberration would not be explicable. nowhere, however, in this epistle is there any trace of an established ministry; on the contrary, at the close, the 'spiritual' among them are instructed to administer the office of commination. but, generally, from that time forward, the charismatic state in the church more and more disappeared, though single charismata, and individuals endowed with the same, remained. in the first epistle to the believers in thessalonica, paul had made it specially prominent that his gospel had worked there, not as mere word, but with demonstration of the power of the holy spirit (i. ). in the epistles to the philippians and colossians, there is no longer the slightest intimation of, or reference to, the charismata, although in both communities the occasion for such an allusion was very appropriate--in philippi through the jewish opponents, { } and in colossæ on account of the heretical dangers and the threatening gnostic asceticism. on the other hand, in the epistle to the philippians, bishops and deacons are already mentioned as ministers of the community. then, in the pastoral epistles, not only is there no mention of the charismata, but a state of the community is set forth which is wholly different from the charismatic. the communities in asia minor, the ephesian first of all, are partly threatened, partly unsettled by gnostic heresies, strifes of words, foolish controversies, empty babbling about matters of faith, of doctrines of demons, of an advancing godlessness corroding like a gangrene ( tim. iv. - , vi. ff. , tim. ii. ff.). all the counsels which are here given to timothy, the conduct in regard to these evils which is recommended to him, all is of a nature as though charismata no longer existed to any extent, as though, in lieu of the first spiritual soaring and of the fulness of extraordinary powers manifesting itself in the community, the bare prose of the life of the church had already set in."( ) regarding this it is not necessary for us to say more than that the representation which is everywhere made, in the acts and elsewhere, and which seems to be confirmed by paul, is that all the members of these christian communities received the holy spirit, and the divine charismata, but that nowhere have we evidence of any supernatural results produced by them. if, however, the view above expressed be accepted, the difficulty is increased; for, except in the allusions of the apostle to charismata, it is impossible to discover any difference between communities which had received miraculous spiritual "gifts" and those which had not done so. on the contrary, it { } might possibly be shown that a church which had not been so endowed, perhaps on the whole exhibited higher spiritual qualities than another which was supposed to possess the charismata. in none are we able to perceive any supernatural characteristics, or more than the very ordinary marks of a new religious life. it seems scarcely necessary to depart from the natural order of nature, and introduce the supernatural working of a holy spirit to produce such common-place results. we venture to say that there is nothing whatever to justify the assertion of supernatural agency here, and that the special divine charismata existed only in the pious imagination of the apostle, who referred every good quality in man to divine grace. we have reserved the gift of "tongues" for special discussion, because paul enters into it with a fulness with which he does not treat any of the other charismata, and a valuable opportunity is thus afforded us of ascertaining something definite with regard to the nature of the gift; and also because we have a narrative in the acts of the apostles of the first descent of the holy spirit, manifesting itself in "tongues," with which it may be instructive to compare the apostle's remarks. we may mention that, in the opinion of many, the cause which induced the apostle to say so much regarding charismata in his first letter to the corinthians was the circumstance, that many maintained the gift of tongues to be the only form of "the manifestation of the spirit." this view is certainly favoured by the narrative in the acts, in which not only at the first famous day of pentecost, but on almost every occasion of the imposition of the apostle's hands, this is the only gift mentioned as accompanying the reception of the holy { } spirit. in any case, it is apparent from the whole of the apostle's homily on the subject, that the gift of tongues was especially valued in the church of corinth.( ) it is difficult to conceive, on the supposition that amongst the charismata there were comprised miraculous gifts of healings, and further power of working miracles, that these could have been held so cheap in comparison with the gift of tongues; but in any case, a better comprehension of what this "gift" really was cannot fail to assist us in understanding the true nature of the whole of the charismata. it is evident that the apostle paul himself does not rank the gift of tongues very highly, and indeed, that he seems to value prophecy more than all the other charismata (xiv. ff.); but the simple yet truly noble eloquence with which (xiii. ff.) he elevates above all these gifts the possession of spiritual love is a subtle indication of their real character. probably paul would have termed christian charity a gift of the spirit as much as { } he does "gifts of healings" or "workings of powers;" but, however rare may be the virtue, it is not now recognized as miraculous, although it is here shown to be more desirable and precious than all the miraculous gifts. even apostolic conceptions of the supernatural cannot soar above the range of natural morality. the real nature of the "gift of tongues" has given rise to an almost interminable controversy, and innumerable treatises have been written upon the subject. it would have been impossible for us to have exhaustively entered upon such a discussion in this work, for which it only possesses an incidental and passing interest; but fortunately such a course is rendered unnecessary by the fact that, so far as we are concerned, the miraculous nature of the "gift" alone comes into question, and may be disposed of without any elaborate analysis of past controversy or minute reference to disputed points. those who desire to follow the course of the voluminous discussion will find ample materials in the treatises which we shall at least indicate in the course of our remarks, and we shall adhere as closely as possible to our own point of view. in cor. xii. , the apostle mentions, amongst the other charismata, "kinds of tongues" [------] and "interpretation of tongues" [------], as two distinct gifts. in v. he again uses the expression [------], and in a following verse he inquires: "do all speak with tongues" [------]( ) "do all interpret" [------]? he says shortly after, xiii. : "if i speak with the tongues of men and of angels [------] and have not love," &c. in the following chapter the expressions used in discussing the gift vary. { } in xiv. he says: "he that speaketh with a tongue"( ) [------]( ) using the singular; and again (v. ), of "the tongues" [------], being a sign; and in v. , each "hath a tongue" [------]. the word [------] or [------] has several significations in greek. the first and primary meaning "the tongue": as a mere member of the body, the organ of speech; next, a tongue, or language; and further, an obsolete or foreign word not in ordinary use. if we inquire into the use of [------] in the new testament, we find that, setting aside the passages in acts, mark, and cor. xii.-xiv., in which the phenomenon we are discussing is referred to, the word is invariably used in the first sense, "the tongue,"( ) except in the apocalypse, where the word as "language" typifies different nations.( ) any one who attentively considers all the passages in which the charisma is discussed will observe that no uniform application of any one signification throughout is possible. we may briefly say that all the attempts which have been made philologically to determine the true nature of the phenomenon which the apostle discusses have failed to produce any really satisfactory result, or to secure the general adhesion of critics. it is we think obvious that paul does not apply the word, either in the plural or in the singular, in its ordinary senses, but makes use of [------] to describe phenomena connected with speech, without intending strictly to apply it either to the tongue or to a definite language. we { } merely refer to this in passing, for it is certain that no philological discussion of the word can materially affect the case; and the argument is of no interest for our inquiry. each meaning has been adopted by critics and been made the basis for a different explanation of the phenomenon. philology is incapable of finally solving such a problem. from the time of irenæus,( ) or at least of origen, the favourite theory of the fathers, based chiefly upon the narrative in acts of the descent of the holy spirit on the day of pentecost, was that the disciples suddenly became super-naturally endowed with power to speak other languages which they had not previously learned, and that this gift was more especially conferred to facilitate the promulgation of the gospel throughout the world. augustine went so far as to believe that each of the apostles was thus enabled to speak all languages.( ) the opinion that the "gift of tongues" consisted of the power, miraculously conferred by the holy ghost, to speak in a language or languages previously unknown to the speaker long continued to prevail, and it is still the popular, as well as the orthodox, view of the subject.( ) as soon as { } the attention of critics was seriously directed to the question, however, this interpretation became rapidly modified, or was altogether abandoned. it is unnecessary for us to refer in detail to the numerous explanations which have been given of the phenomenon, or to enumerate the extraordinary views which have been expressed regarding it; it will be sufficient if, without reference to minor differences of opinion respecting the exact form in which it exhibited itself, we broadly state that a great majority of critics, rejecting the theory that [------] means to speak languages previously unknown to the speakers, pronounce it to be the speech of persons in a state of ecstatic excitement, chiefly of the nature of prayer or praise, and unintelligible to ordinary hearers.( ) whether { } this speech consisted of mere inarticulate tones, of excited ejaculations, of obsolete or uncommon expressions and provincialisms, of highly poetical rhapsodies, of prayer in slow scarcely audible accents, or of chaunted mysterious phrases, fragmentary and full of rapturous intensity, as these critics variously suppose, we shall not pause to inquire. it is clear that, whatever may have been the form of the speech, if instead of being speech in unlearnt languages supernaturally communicated, [------] was only the expression of religious excitement, however that may be supposed to have originated, the pretentions of the gift to a miraculous character shrink at once into exceedingly small proportions. every unprejudiced mind must admit that the representation that the gift of "tongues," of which the apostle speaks in his epistle to the corinthians, conferred upon the recipient the power to speak foreign languages before unknown to him, may in great part be traced to the narrative in acts of the descent of the holy spirit on the day of pentecost. although a few apologists advance the plea that there may have been differences in the manifestation, it is generally recognized on both sides that, however differently described by the two writers, the [------] of paul and of the acts is, in reality, one and the same phenomenon. the impression conveyed by the narrative has been applied to the didactic remarks of paul, and a meaning forced upon them which they cannot possibly bear. it is not too much to say that, but for the mythical account in the acts, no one would ever have supposed that the [------] of paul was the gift of speaking foreign languages without previous study or practice. in the interminable controversy regarding the phenomenon, moreover, it seems to us to have been a { } fundamental error, on both sides too often, to have considered it necessary to the acceptance of any explanation that it should equally suit both the remarks of paul and the account in acts.( ) the only right course is to test the narrative by the distinct and authoritative statements of the apostle; but to adopt the contrary course is much the same procedure as altering the natural interpretation of an original historical document in order to make it agree with the romance of some unknown writer of a later day. the apostle paul writes as a contemporary and eye-witness of phenomena which affected himself, and regarding which he gives the most valuable direct and indirect information. the unknown author of the acts was not an eye-witness of the scene which he describes, and his narrative bears upon its very surface the clearest marks of traditional and legendary treatment. the ablest apologists freely declare that the evidence of paul is of infinitely greater value than that of the unknown and later writer, and must be preferred before it. the majority of those who profess to regard the narrative as historical explain away its clearest statements with startling ingenuity, or conceal them beneath a cloud of words. the references to the phenomenon in later portions of the acts are in themselves quite inconsistent with the earlier narrative in ch. ii. the detailed criticism of paul is the only contemporary, and it is certainly the only trustworthy, account we possess regarding the gift of "tongues."( ) we must, therefore, dismiss from our minds, if possible, the bias which the narrative in the acts has unfortunately { } created, and attend solely to the words of the apostle. if his report of the phenomenon discredit that of the unknown and later writer, so much the worse for the latter. in any case it is the testimony of paul which is referred to and which we are called upon to consider, and later writers must not be allowed to invest it with impossible meanings. even if we had not such undeniable reasons for preferring the statements of paul to the later and untrustworthy narrative of an unknown writer, the very contents of the latter, contrasted with the more sober remarks of the apostle, would consign it to a very subordinate place. discussing the miracle of pentecost in acts, which he, of course, regards as the instantaneous communication of ability to speak in foreign languages, zeller makes the following remarks: "the supposition of such a miracle is opposed to a right view of divine agency, and of the relation of god to the world, and, in this case in particular, to a right view of the constitution of the human mind. the composition and the properties of a body may be altered through external influence, but mental acquirements are attained only through personal activity, through practice; and it is just in this that spirit distinguishes itself from matter: that it is free, that there is nothing in it which it has not itself spontaneously introduced. the external and instantaneous in-pouring of a mental acquirement is a representation which refutes itself." in reply to those who object to this reasoning he retorts: "the assertion that such a miracle actually occurred contradicts the analogy of all attested experience, that it is invented by an individual or by tradition corresponds with it; when, therefore, the historical writer has only the choice between these two { } alternatives, he must according to the laws of historical probability, under all the circumstances, unconditionally decide for the second. he must do this even if an eyewitness of the pretended miracle stood before him; he must all the more do so if he has to do with a statement which, beyond doubt not proceeding from an eye-witness, is more possibly separated by some generations from the event in question."( ) these objections are not confined to rationalistic critics and do not merely represent the arguments of scepticism. neander expresses similar sentiments,( ) and after careful examination pronounces the narrative in acts untrustworthy, and, adhering to the representations of paul, rejects the theory that [------] was speech in foreign languages supernaturally imparted. meyer, who arrives at much the same result as neander, speaks still more emphatically. he says: "_this_ supposed gift of tongues (all languages), however, was in the apostolic age, partly _unnecessary_ for the preaching of the gospel, as the preachers thereof only required to be able to speak hebrew and greek; partly _too general_, as amongst the assembly there were certainly many who were not called to be teachers. and, on the other hand, again, it would also have been _premature_, as, before all, paul the apostle of the gentiles would have required it, in whom nevertheless there is as little trace of any _subsequent_ reception of it as that he preached otherwise than in hebrew and greek. _but now, how is the event to be historically judged?_ regarding this the following is to be observed: as the instantaneous bestowal of facility in a foreign language is neither logically possible nor psychologically { } and morally conceivable, and as not the slightest intimation of such a thing in the apostles is perceptible in their epistles and elsewhere (on the contrary, comp. xiv. ); as, further, if it was only momentary, the impossibility increases, and as peter himself in his speech does not once make the slightest reference to the foreign languages: therefore,--whether, without any intimation in the text, one consider that pentecost assembly as a representation of all future christianity, or not--the occurrence, as luke relates it, cannot be transmitted in its actual historical circumstance."( ) let us a little examine the particulars of the narrative in acts ii. all the brethren were assembled in one place, a house [------], on the morning of the day of pentecost. in the preceding chapter (i. ) we learn that the number of disciples was then about , and the crowd which came together when the miraculous occurrence took place must have been great, seeing that it is stated that , souls were baptized and added to the church upon the occasion (ii. ). passing over the statement as to the numbers of the disciples, which might well surprise us after the information given by the gospels, we may ask in what house in jerusalem could such a multitude have assembled? apologists have exhausted their ingenuity in replying to the question, but whether placing the scene in one of the halls or courts of the temple, or in an imaginary house in one of the streets leading to the temple, the explanation is equally vague and unsatisfactory. how did the multitude so rapidly know of what was passing in a private house? we shall say nothing at present of the sound of the { } "rushing mighty wind" which filled all the house, nor of the descent of the "tongues as of fire," nor of the various interpretations of these phenomena by apologetic writers. these incidents do not add to the historical character of the narrative, nor can it be pronounced either clear or consistent. the brethren assembled "were all filled with the holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues [------], as the spirit gave them utterance."( ) apologists, in order somewhat to save the historical credit of the account and reconcile it with the statements of paul, have variously argued that there is no affirmation made in the narrative that speech in foreign languages previously unknown was imparted. the members of the fifteen nations who hear the galilaeans speaking "in our own language wherein we were born" [------] are disposed of with painful ingenuity; but, passing over all this, it is recognized by unprejudiced critics on both sides that at least the author of acts, in writing this account, intended to represent the brethren as instantaneously speaking those previously unknown foreign languages. a few writers represent the miracle to have been one of hearing rather than of speaking, the brethren merely praising god in their own tongue, the aramaic, but the spectators understanding in their various languages.( ) this only shifts the difficulty from the speakers to the hearers, and the explanation is generally repudiated. it is, however, freely granted by all that history does not exhibit a single instance of such a gift of tongues having ever been made useful for the purpose of { } preaching the gospel.( ) paul, who claimed the possession of the gift of tongues in a superlative degree ( cor. xiv. ), does not appear to have spoken more languages than aramaic and greek. he writes to the romans in the latter tongue and not in latin, and to the galatians in the same language instead of their own. peter, who appears to have addressed the assembled nations in greek on this very occasion, does not in his speech either refer to foreign languages or claim the gift himself, for in v. he speaks only of others: "for _these_ [------] are not drunken." every one remembers the ancient tradition recorded by papias, and generally believed by the fathers, that mark accompanied peter as his "interpreter" [------].( ) the first epistle bearing the name of peter, and addressed to some of the very nations mentioned in acts, to sojourners "in pontus, galatia, cappadocia, asia, and bithynia," is written in greek; and so is the "epistle to the hebrews" and the other works of the new testament. few will be inclined to deny that, to take only one language for instance, the greek of the writings of the new testament leaves something to be desired, and that, if the writers possessed such a supernatural gift, they evidently did not speak even so important and current a language with absolute purity. "le style des ecrivains sacred," writes a modern { } apologist, "montre clairement qu'ils ont appris la langue grecque et qu'ils ne la possedent pas de droit divin et par inspiration, car ils l'ecrivent sans correction, en la surchargeant de locutions hebraiques."( ) in fact, as most critics point out, there never was a period at which a gift of foreign tongues was less necessary for intercourse with the civilized world, greek being almost everywhere current. as regards the fifteen nations who are supposed to have been represented on this great occasion, neander says: "it is certain that amongst the inhabitants of towns in cappadocia, in pontus, in asia minor, phrygia, pamphylia, cyrene, and in the parts of libya and egypt peopled by greek and jewish colonies, the greek language was in great part more current than the old national tongue. there remain, out of the whole catalogue of languages, at most the persian, syriac, arabic, greek, and latin. the more rhetorical than historical stamp of the narrative is evident."( ) this rhetorical character, as contradistinguished from sober history, is indeed painfully apparent throughout. the presence in jerusalem of jews, devout men "from every nation under heaven" is dramatically opportune, and thus representatives of the fifteen nations are prepared to appear in the house and hear their own languages in which they were born spoken in so supernatural, though useless, a manner by the brethren. they are all said to have been "confounded" at the phenomenon, and the writer adds, ii. f: "and they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, behold, are not all these which speak galilaeans? and how hear we every man in our own { } language wherein we were born?" &c. did all the multitude say this? or is not this the writer ascribing, according to his view, probable sentiments to them? how again did they know that the hundred and twenty or more brethren were galilaean? further on, the writer adds more of the same kind, v. , : "and they were all amazed and were in doubt, saying one to another: what may this mean? but others mocking said, they are full of sweet wine." is it not a strange manner of accounting for such a phenomenon as (v. ) hearing people speaking in their own tongues the great works of god to suppose that they are drunken? people speaking with tongues, in paul's sense ( cor. xiv. , , ), and creating an unintelligible tumult, might well lead strangers to say that they were either mad or drunken, but the praise of god in foreign language, understood by so many, could not convey such an impression. peter does not, in explanation, simply state that they are speaking foreign languages which have just been supernaturally imparted to them, but argues (v. ) that "these are not drunken, as ye suppose, for it is the third hour of the day,"--too early to be "full of sweet wine," and proceeds to assert that the phenomenon is, on the contrary, a fulfilment of a prophecy of joel in which, although the pouring out of god's spirit upon all flesh is promised "in the last days," and as a result that: "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams," not a single word is said of any gift of "tongues," foreign or otherwise. the miraculous phenomenon in question is not mentioned in the prophecy of which it is supposed to be the accomplishment. it does not much help matters to argue that the miracle, although not for future use, was intended as a { } sign. we shall see what paul says regarding [------] as a sign, but we may here merely point out that the effect produced in the corinthian church is rather an impression of madness, whilst here it leads to a mocking accusation of drunkenness. the conversion of the , is by no means referred to the speaking with tongues, but simply to the speech of peter (ii. £ ). from every point of view, there is no cohesion between the different parts of the narrative; it is devoid of verisimilitude. it is not surprising that so many critics of all shades of opinion recognize unhistorical elements in the narrative in acts,( ) not to use a stronger term. to allow such an account to influence our interpretation of paul's statements regarding the gift of tongues is quite out of the question; and no one who appreciates the nature of the case and who carefully examines the narrative of the unknown writer can, we think, hesitate to reject his theory of a supernatural bestowal of power to speak foreign languages, before unknown. it is not difficult to trace the origin of the account in acts and, although we cannot here pause to do so with any minuteness, we may at least indicate the lines upon which the narrative is based. there is no doubt that then, as now, the jews commemorated at the feast of pentecost the giving of the law on sinai.( ) it seemed { } good to the author of acts that the prophet like unto moses,( ) who was to abrogate that law and replace it by a dispensation of grace, should inaugurate the new law of love and liberty( ) with signs equally significant and miraculous. it is related in exodus xix. that the lord descended upon sinai "in fire," and that the whole mount quaked greatly. the voice of god pronounced the decalogue and, as the septuagint version renders our ex. xx. : "all the people saw the voice, and the lightnings and the voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking."( ) according to rabbinical tradition, however, when god came down to give the law to the israelites, he appeared not to israel alone, but to all the other nations, and the voice in which the law was given went to the ends of the earth and was heard of ail peoples.( ) it will be remembered that the number of the nations was supposed to be seventy, each speaking a different language, and the law was given in the one sacred hebrew tongue. the rabbins explained, however: "the voice from sinai was divided into voices and languages, so that all nations of the earth heard (the law), and each heard it actually in its own language."( ) and again: "although the ten commandments were promulgated with one single tone, yet it is said (exod. xx. ), 'all people heard the voices' (in the plural and not the voice in the singular); "the reason is: as the voice went forth it was divided into seven voices, { } and then into seventy tongues, and every people heard the law in its own mother-tongue."( ) the same explanation is given of ps. lxviii. , and the separation of the voice into seven voices and seventy tongues is likened to the sparks beaten by a hammer from molten metal on the anvil.( ) philo expresses the same ideas in several places. we can only extract one passage in which, speaking of the giving of the law on sinai, and discussing the manner in which god proclaimed the decalogue, he says: "for god is not like a man in need of a voice and of a tongue... but it seems to me that at that time he performed a most holy and beseeming wonder, commanding an invisible voice to be created in air, more wonderful than all instruments,.... not lifeless, but neither a form of living creature composed of body and soul, but a reasonable soul full of clearness and distinctness, which formed and excited the air and transformed it into flaming fire, and sounded forth such an articulated voice, like breath through a trumpet, that it seemed to be equally heard by those who were near and those furthest off."( ) a little further on he says: "but from the midst of the fire streaming from heaven, a most awful voice sounded forth, the flame being articulated to language familiar to the hearers, which made that which was said so vividly clear, as to seem rather seeing than { } hearing it."( ) it requires no elaborate explanation to show how this grew into the miracle at pentecost at the inauguration of the christian dispensation, when suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind which filled all the house where the disciples were, and there appeared to them tongues as of fire parting asunder which sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues, even as the spirit gave them utterance, so that devout men from every nation under heaven heard them speaking, everyone in his own language wherein he was born, the great works of god.( ) when we turn to the other passages in the acts where the gift of tongues is mentioned, we find that the interpretation of foreign languages supernaturally imparted is quite out of place. when peter is sent to cornelius, as he is addressing the centurion and his household, and even before they are baptized (x. ), "the holy spirit fell on all them who hear the word;" and the sign of it is (v. ) that they are heard "speaking with tongues and magnifying god" [------], precisely like the disciples at pentecost (cf ii. , xi. f.). now as this gift fell on all who heard the word (x. ), it could not be a sign to unbelievers; and the idea that cornelius and his house immediately began to speak in foreign languages, which, as in the case { } of the corinthians, probably no one understood, instead of simply "magnifying god" in their own tongue, which everyone understood, is almost ludicrous, if without offence we may venture to say so. the same remarks apply to xix. . we must again allow an eminent apologist, who will not be accused of irreverence, to characterise such a representation. "now in such positions and such company, speech in foreign tongues would be something altogether without object and without meaning. where the consciousness of the grace of salvation, and of a heavenly life springing from it, is first aroused in man, his own mother tongue verily, not a foreign language, will be the natural expression of his feelings. or we must imagine a magical power which, taking possession of men, like instruments without volition, forces them to utter strange tones--a thing contradicting all analogy in the operations of christianity."( ) the good sense of the critic revolts against the natural submission of the apologist. we have diverged so far in order prominently to bring before the reader the nature and source of the hypothesis that the gift of "tongues" signifies instantaneous power to speak unlearnt foreign languages. such an interpretation is derived almost entirely from the mythical narrative in the acts of the apostles. we shall now proceed to consider the statements of the apostle paul, and endeavour to ascertain what the supposed miraculous charisma really is. that it is something very different from what the unknown writer represents it in the episode of pentecost cannot be doubted. "whoever has, even once, read with attention what paul writes of the speaking with tongues in the corinthian community," writes thiersch, "knows that the difference between that gift of tongues { } and this (of acts ii.) could scarcely be greater. there, a speech which no mortal can understand without interpretation, and also no philologist, but the holy spirit alone can interpret; here, a speech which requires no interpretation. that gift serves only for the edification of the speaker, this clearly also for that of the hearer. the one is of no avail for the instruction of the ignorant; the other, clearly, is imparted wholly for that purpose."( ) it may be well that we should state a few reasons which show that paul, in his first letter to the corinthians, does not intend, in speaking of [------], to represent speech in foreign languages. in the very outset of his dissertation on the subject (xiv. ), paul very distinctly declares as the principal reason for preferring prophecy to the gift of tongues: "for he that speaketh with a tongue [------] speaketh not unto men but unto god: for no one understandeth( ) [------]." how could this be said if [------] meant merely speaking a foreign language? the presence of a single person versed in the language spoken would in such a case vitiate the whole of paul's argument. the statement made is general, it will be observed, and not limited, to one community, but applied to a place like corinth, one of the greatest commercial cities, in which merchants, seamen, and visitors of all countries were to be found, it would have been unreasonable to have characterized a foreign tongue as absolutely unintelligible. in xiv. , paul says: "so likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue [------] words { } easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into air." how could paul use the expression "by the tongue" if he meant a foreign language in v. and elsewhere? he is comparing [------] in the preceding verses with the sounds of musical instruments, and the point reached in v. clearly brings home the application of his argument: the [------] is unintelligible, like the pipe or harp, and unless the tongue utter words which have an understood meaning, it is mere speaking into air. is it possible that paul would call speech in a language, foreign to him, perhaps, but which nevertheless was the mother tongue of some nation, "speaking into air"? in such a case, he must have qualified his statement by obvious explanations, of which not a word appears throughout his remarks. that he does not speak of foreign languages is made still more clear by the next two verses, v. : in which, continuing his argument from analogy, he actually compares [------] with speech in foreign languages, and ends, v. : "if, therefore, i know not the meaning of the voice, i shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) and he that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) in my judgment."' paul's logic is certainly not always beyond reproach, but he cannot be accused of perpetrating such an antithesis as contrasting a thing with itself. he, therefore, explicitly distinguishes (v. ) [------] "kinds of languages"( ) from (xii. , , &c.) [------] "kinds of tongues." in xiv. , paul says: "if i come unto you speaking with tongues [------] what shall i profit you, unless i shall { } speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching?" [------]; and then he goes on to compare such unintelligible speech with musical instruments. now it is obvious that revelation, knowledge, prophecy and teaching might equally be expressed in foreign languages, and, therefore, in "speaking with tongues" it is no mere difficulty of expression which makes it unprofitable, but that general unintelligibility which is the ground of the whole of paul's objections. paul exclaims (v. ): "i thank god i speak with a tongue [------]( ) more than ye all, ( ) but in a church i would rather speak five words with my understanding, that i may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue [------]."( ) we have already pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that paul could speak many languages. so far as we have any information, he only made use of greek and aramaic, and never even preached where those languages were not current. he always employed the former in his epistles, whether addressed to corinth, galatia, or rome, and his knowledge even of that language was certainly not perfect. speaking "with a tongue" cannot, for reasons previously given, mean a foreign language; and this is still more obvious from what he says in v. , just quoted, in which he distinguishes speaking with a tongue from speaking with his understanding. five words so spoken are better than ten thousand in a tongue, because he speaks { } with the understanding in the one case and without it in the second. it is clear that a man speaks with his understanding as much in one language as another, but it is the main characteristic of the speech we are discussing that it is throughout opposed to understanding: cf. vv. , . it would be inconceivable that, if this gift really signified power to speak foreign languages, paul could on the one hand use the expressions in this letter with regard to it, and on the other that he could have failed to add remarks consistent with such an interpretation. for instance is it possible that the apostle in repressing the exercise of the charisma, as he does, could have neglected to point out some other use for it than mere personal edification? could he have omitted to tell some of these speakers with tongues that, instead of wasting their languages in a church where no one understood them, it would be well for them to employ them in the instruction of the nations whose tongues had been supernaturally imparted to them? as it is, paul checks the use of a gift bestowed by the holy spirit, and reduces its operation to the smallest limits, without once indicating so obvious a sphere of usefulness for the miraculous power. we need not, however, proceed to further arguments upon this branch of the subject; although, in treating other points, additional evidence will constantly present itself. for the reasons we have stated, and many others, the great majority of critics are agreed that the gift of tongues, according to paul, was not the power of speaking foreign languages previously unknown.( ) but for the narrative in acts ii. no one would ever have thought of such an interpretation. { } coming now to consider the two charismata, "kinds of tongues" and "the interpretation of tongues," more immediately in connection with our inquiry, as so-called miraculous gifts of the holy spirit, we shall first endeavour to ascertain some of their principal characteristics. the theory of foreign languages supernaturally imparted without previous study may be definitively laid aside. the interpretation of tongues may go with it, but requires a few observations. it is clear from paul's words throughout this dissertation that the interpretation of tongues not only was not invariably attached to the gift of tongues( ) ( cor. xiv. , , ), but was at least often a separate gift possessed without the kinds of tongues (cf. xii. , , xiv. , ). nothing can be more specific than xii. "... to another kinds of tongues; and to another interpretation of tongues;" and again, v. : "do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" this is indeed presaged by the "diversities of gifts," &c, of xii. ff. upon the hypothesis of foreign languages, this would presuppose that some spoke languages which they could not interpret, and consequently could not understand, and that others understood languages which they could not speak. the latter point is common enough in ordinary life; but, in this instance, the miracle of supernaturally receiving a perfect knowledge of { } languages, instantaneously and without previous study, is as great as to receive the power to speak them. the anomaly in the miracle, merely to point out a suggestive discrepancy where all is anomalous, is that the gift of tongues should ever have been separated from the gift of interpretation. if a man understand the foreign language he speaks he can interpret it; if he cannot interpret it, he cannot understand it; and if he cannot understand it, can he possibly speak it? certainly not, without his having been made a perfectly mechanical instrument through which, apart from the understanding and the will, sounds are involuntarily produced, which is not to be entertained. still pursuing the same hypothesis,--the one gift is to speak languages which no one understands, the other to understand languages which no one speaks. paul never even assumes the probability that the "tongue" spoken is understood by any one except the interpreter. the interpretation of such obscure tongues must have been a gift very little used,--never, indeed, except as the complement to the gift of tongues. the natural and useful facility in languages is apparently divided into two supernatural and useless halves. the idea is irresistibly suggested, as apparently it was to the apostle himself, whether it would not have been more for the good of mankind and for the honour of christianity, if, instead of these two miraculously incomplete gifts, a little natural good sense, five words even, to be spoken in the vernacular tongue and requiring no interpretation had been imparted. if, instead of foreign languages, we substitute the utterance of ecstatic religious excitement, the anomaly of speaking a language without understanding it or being understood becomes intelligible; and equally so the interpretation, { } unaccompanied by the power of speaking. it is obvious in both cases that, as no one understands the tongue, no one can determine whether the interpretation of it be accurate or not. but it is easily conceivable that a sympathetic nervous listener might suppose that he understood the broken and incoherent speech of ecstasy and might interpret it according to his own stimulated imagination. the mysterious and unknown are suggestive texts, and there is nothing more infectious than religious excitement. in all this, however, is there anything miraculous? we need not further demonstrate that the chief and general characteristic of "kinds of tongues" was that they were unintelligible (cf. cor. xiv. , - , - ). speaking with the spirit [------] is opposed to speaking with the understanding [------] (cf. vv. - , &c). they were not only unintelligible to others, but the speaker himself did not understand what he uttered: v. . "for if i pray with a tongue [------] my spirit [------] prayeth, but my understanding [------] is unfruitful" (cf. f. ). we have already pointed out that paul speaks of these charismata in general, and not as affecting the corinthians only; and we must now add that he obviously does not even insinuate that the "kinds of tongues" possessed by that community was a spurious charisma, or that any attempt had been made to simulate the gift; for nothing could have been more simple than for the apostle to denounce such phenomena as false, and to distinguish the genuine from the imitated speech with tongues. the most convincing proof that his remarks refer to the genuine charisma is that the apostle applies to himself the very same restrictions in the use of "tongues" as he enforces upon the corinthians { } (vv. - , , &c), and characterises his own gift precisely as he does theirs (vv. , , , , ). now what was the actual operation of this singular miraculous gift, and its utility whether as regards the community or the gifted individual? paul restricts the speaking of "tongues" in church because, being unintelligible, it is not for edification (xiv. ff. f. , , ). he himself does not make use of his gift for the assemblies of believers (vv. , ). another ground upon which he objects to the use of "kinds of tongues" in public is that all the gifted apparently speak at once (vv. , f. ). it will be remembered that all the charismata and their operations are described as due to the direct agency of the holy spirit (xii. ff.); and immediately following their enumeration, ending with "kinds of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues," the apostle resumes: v. . "but all these worketh the one and the same spirit, dividing to each severally as he wills;" and in acts ii. the brethren are represented as speaking with tongues "as the spirit gave them utterance." now the first thought which presents itself is: how can a gift which is due to the direct working of the holy spirit possibly be abused? we must remember clearly that the speech is not expressive of the understanding of the speaker. the [------] spoke under the inspiration of the supernatural agent, what neither they nor others understood. is it permissible to suppose that the holy spirit could inspire speech with tongues at an unfitting time? can we imagine that this spirit can actually have prompted many people to speak at one and the same time to the utter disturbance of order? is not such a gift of tongues more like the confusion of tongues in babel( ) { } than a christian charisma? "and the lord said:...go to, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."( ) in spite of his abstract belief in the divine origin of the charisma, paul's language unconsciously betrays practical doubt as to its character. does not such sarcasm as the following seem extremely indecorous when criticising a result produced directly by the holy spirit? (xiv. ) "if, therefore, the whole church be come into one place and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned and unbelieving persons will they not say that ye are mad?" at pentecost such an assembly was supposed to be drunken.( ) the whole of the counsel of the apostle upon this occasion really amounts to an injunction to quench the spirit. it is quite what might be expected in the case of the excitement of ecstatic religion, that the strong emotion should principally find vent in the form of prayer and praise (vv. ff.), equally so that it should be unintelligible and that no one should know when to say "amen" (v. ), and that all should speak at once, and still more so that the practical result should be tumult (vv. , ). all this, it might appear, could be produced without the intervention of the holy spirit. so far, is there and utility in the miracle? but we are told that it is "for a sign." paul argues upon this point in a highly eccentric manner. he quotes (v. ) isaiah xxviii. , , in a form neither agreeing with the septuagint nor with the hebrew, a passage which has merely a superficial and verbal analogy with the gift of tongues, but whose real { } historical meaning has no reference to it whatever: "in the law it is written, that with men of other tongues and with the lips of others will i speak unto this people; and yet for all that they will not hear me, saith the lord." the apostle continues with singular logic: "so that [------] the tongues are for a sign [------] not to those who believe but to the unbelieving; but prophecy is not for the unbelieving but for those who believe. if, therefore, the whole church be come into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned or unbelieving persons, will they not say that ye are mad? but if all prophesy and there come in an unbeliever... he is convicted by all... and so falling on his face he will worship god, reporting that god is indeed in you." the apostle himself shows that the tongues cannot be considered a sign by unbelievers, upon whom, apparently, they produce no other impression than that the speakers are mad or drunken. under any circumstances, the "kinds of tongues" described by the apostle are a very sorry specimen of the "signs and wonders and powers" of which we have heard so much. it is not surprising that the apostle prefers exhortation in a familiar tongue. in an ecstatic state, men are incapable of edifying others: we shall presently see how far they can edify themselves. paul utters the pith of the whole matter at the very outset of his homily, when he prefers exhortation to kinds of tongues: v. . "for he that speaketh with a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto god: for no one under-standeth, but in spirit he speaketh mysteries" [------]. it is not possible to read his words without the impression that the apostle treats the whole subject with suppressed impatience. his mind was too prone to believe in spiritual mysteries, and his nervous { } nature too susceptible to religious emotion and enthusiasm to permit him clearly to recognize the true character of the gift of "tongues;" but his good sense asserted itself and, after protesting that he would rather speak five words with his understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue, he breaks off with the characteristic exclamation (v. ): "brethren, become not children in your minds" [------]. the advice is not yet out of place. what was the private utility or advantage of the supernatural gift? how did he who spoke with a tongue edify himself? (v. .) paul clearly states that he does not edify the church (vv. ff.). in the passage just quoted the apostle, however, says that the speaker "with a tongue" "speaketh to god"; and further on (vv. , ) he implies that, although he himself does not use the gift in public, he does so in private. he admonishes (v. ) any one gifted with tongues, if there be no interpreter present, to "keep silence in a church, but let him speak to himself and to god." but in what does the personal edification of the individual consist? in employing language, which he does not comprehend, in private prayer and praise? in addressing god in some unintelligible jargon, in the utterance of which his understanding has no part? many strange purposes and proceedings have been attributed to the supreme being, but probably none has been imagined more incongruous than a gift of tongues unsuitable for the edification of others, and not intelligible to the recipient, but considered an edifying substitute in private devotion for his own language. this was certainly not the form of prayer which jesus taught his disciples.( ) and this gift was valued { } more highly in the corinthian church than all the rest! do we not get an instructive insight into the nature of the other charismata from this suggestive fact? the reality of miracles does not seem to be demonstrated by these chapters.( ) we have already stated that the vast majority of critics explain [------] as speech in an ecstatic condition;( ) and all the phenomena described by paul closely correspond with the utterance of persons in a state of extreme religious enthusiasm, and excitement, of which many illustrations might be given from other religions before and since the commencement of our era, as well as in the history of christianity in early and recent times. every one knows of the proceedings of the heathen oracles, the wild writhings and cries of the pythoness and the mystic utterances of the sibyl. in the old testament there is allusion to the ecstatic emotion of the prophets in the account of saul, sara. xix. ; cf. isaiah viii. , xxix. . the montanists exhibited similar phenomena, and tertullian has recorded several instances of such religious excitement, to which we have elsewhere referred. chrysostora had to repress paroxysms of pious excitement closely resembling these in the fourth century;( ) and even down to our own times instances have never been wanting of this form of hysterical religion. into none of this can we enter here. enough, we trust, has been said to show the true character of the supposed supernatural charismata of paul from his own account of them, and the information contained in his epistles. { } although we have been forced to examine in considerable detail the passages in the writings of paul cited by apologists in support of miracles, the study is one of great value to our inquiry. these are the only passages which we possess in which a contemporary and eye-witness describes what he considers supernatural phenomena, and conveys to us his impression of miraculous agency. instead of traditional reports of miracles narrated by writers who are unknown, and who did not witness the occurrences in question, we have here a trustworthy witness dealing with matters in which he was personally interested, and writing a didactic homily upon the nature and operation of charismata, which he believed to be miraculous and conferred upon the church by the immediate agency of the holy spirit. the nineteenth century here comes into direct contact with the age of miracles, but at the touch the miracles vanish, and that which, seen through the golden mist of pious tradition, seems to possess unearthly power and beauty, on closer examination dwindles into the prose of every day life. the more minutely reported miracles are scanned, the more unreal they are recognized to be. the point to which we now desire to call attention, however, is the belief and the mental constitution of paul. we have seen something of the nature and operation of the gift of tongues. that the phenomena described proceeded from an ecstatic state, into which persons of highly excitable nervous organization are very liable to fall under the operation of strong religious impressions, can scarcely be doubted. eminent apologists( ) have gravely illustrated the phenomena by the analogy of mesmerism, { } somnambulism and the effects of magnetism. paul asserts that he was subject to the influence, whatever it was, more than anyone, and there is nothing which is more credible than the statement, or more characteristic of the apostle. we desire to speak of him with the profoundest respect and admiration. we know more, from his epistles, of the intimate life and feelings of the great apostle of the gentiles than of any other man of the apostolic age, and it is impossible not to feel warm sympathy with his noble and generous character. the history of christianity, after the death of its founder, would sink almost into common-place if the grand figure of paul were blotted from its pages. but it is no detraction to recognize that his nervous temperament rendered him peculiarly susceptible of those religious impressions which result in conditions of ecstatic trance, to which, as we actually learn from himself, he was exceptionally subject. the effects of this temperament probably first made him a christian; and to his enthusiastic imagination we owe most of the supernatural dogmas of the religion which he adopted and transformed. one of these trances the apostle himself recounts,( ) always with the cautious reserve: "whether in the body or out of the body i know not, god knoweth," how he was caught up to the third heaven, and in paradise heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak; in immediate connection with which he continues: "and lest i should be exalted above measure by the excess of the revelations, there was given to me a stake [------] in the flesh, an angel of satan to buffet me"( ) this was one of { } the "visions [------] and revelations [------] of the lord" of which he speaks, and of which he had such an excess to boast. can any one doubt that this was nearly akin to the state of ecstatic trance in which he spoke with tongues more than all the corinthians? does any one suppose that paul, "whether in the body or out of the body," was ever actually caught up into "the third heaven," wherever that may be? or doubt that this was simply one of the pious hallucinations which visit those who are in such a state? if we are seriously to discuss the point,--it is clear that evidence of such a thing is out of the question; that paul himself admits that he cannot definitely describe what happened; that we have no other ground for considering the matter than the apostle's own mysterious utterance; that it is impossible for a person subject to such visions and hallucinations to distinguish between reality and seeming; that this narrative has not only all the character of hallucination, but no feature of sober fact; and finally that, whilst it accords with all experiences of visionary hallucination, it contradicts all experience of practical life. we have seen that paul believes in the genuineness and supernatural origin of the divine charismata, and he in like manner believes in the reality of his visions and revelations. he has equal reason, or want of reason, in both cases. what, however, was the nature of the "stake in the flesh" which, upon the theory of the diabolical origin of disease, he calls "an angel of satan to buffet me"? there have been many conjectures offered, but one explanation which has been advanced by able critics has special force and probability. it is suggested that this "stake in the flesh," which almost all now at { } least recognise to have been some physical malady, and very many suppose to have been headache or some other similar periodical and painful affection, was in reality a form of epilepsy.( ) it has been ably argued that the representation of the malady as "an angel of satan" to buffet him, directly connects it with nervous disorders like epilepsy, which the jews especially ascribed to diabolical influence; and the mention of this [------] in immediate continuation of his remarks on "visions" and "revelations," which a tendency to this very malady would so materially assist in producing, further confirms the conjecture.( ) no one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. there is not one single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the apostle paul from this class. we do not yet discuss the supposed vision in which he saw the risen jesus, though it is no exception to the rest, but reserve it for the next chapter. at present, it suffices that we point out the bearing of our examination of paul's general testimony to miracles upon our future consideration of his evidence for the resurrection. if it be admitted that his judgment as to the miraculous character of the charismata is fallacious, and that what he considered miraculous were simply natural phenomena, the theory of the reality of miracles { } becomes less tenable than ever. and if, further, it be recognized, as we think it necessarily must be, that paul was subject to natural ecstatic trances, with all their accompanying forms of nervous excitement: "kinds of tongues," visions, and religious hallucinations, a strong and clear light will fall upon his further testimony for miraculous occurrences which we shall shortly have before us. part vi. the resurrection and ascension chapter i. the relation of evidence to subject when the evidence of the gospels regarding the great central dogmas of ecclesiastical christianity is shown to be untrustworthy and insufficient, apologists appeal with confidence to the testimony of the apostle paul. we presume that it is not necessary to show that, in fact, the main weight of the case rests upon his epistles, as undoubted documents of the apostolic age, written some thirty or forty years after the death of the master. the retort has frequently been made to the earlier portion of this work that, so long as the evidence of paul remains unshaken, the apologetic position is secure. we may quote a few lines from an able work, part of a passage discussed in the preceding chapter, as a statement of the case: "in the first place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the gospels are not the strongest evidence for the christian miracles. only one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of an apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. the acts of the apostles stand upon very much the { } same footing with the synoptic gospels, and of this book, we are promised a further examination. but we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately upon those recorded in the gospels; and in these undoubted writings st. paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought by him and by his contemporaries..... besides these allusions, st. paul repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the resurrection and ascension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. on one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the resurrection rested ( cor. xv. - ). and not only does he assert the resurrection as a fact, but he builds upon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'if christ be not risen,' he says, 'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' we do not stay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. it will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical discussion that may be presumed to be in store for it but as external evidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be produced, and it has been entirely untouched so far."( ) we have already disposed of the "allusions" above referred to. we shall in due time deal with the rest of the statements in this passage, but at present it is sufficient to agree at { } least with the remark that, "as external evidence," the testimony of paul "is probably the best that can be produced." we know at least who the witness really is, which is an advantage denied us in the case of the gospels. it would be premature to express surprise, however, that we find the case of miracles, and more especially of such stupendous miracles as the resurrection and ascension, practically resting upon the testimony of a single witness. this thought will intrude itself, but cannot at present be pursued. the allegation which we have to examine is that the founder of christianity, after being dead and buried, rose from the dead and did not again die, but after remaining sometime with his disciples ascended with his body into heaven.( ) it is unnecessary to complicate the question by adding the other doctrines regarding the miraculous birth and divine origin and personality of jesus. in the problem before us, certain objective facts are asserted which admit of being judicially tested. we have nothing to do here with the vague modern representation of these events, by means of which the objective facts vanish, and are replaced by subjective impressions and tricks of consciousness or symbols of spiritual life. those who adopt such views have, of course, abandoned all that is real and supernatural in the supposed events. the resurrection and ascension which we have to deal with are events precisely as objective and real as the in the articles of the church of england this is expressed as follows: art. ii. ".....who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, &c., &c." art. iii. "as christ died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell." art iv. "christ did truly rise again from death, and took again hie body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day." { } death and burial,--no ideal process figured by the imagination or embodiments of christian hope, but tangible realities, historical occurrences in the sense of ordinary life. if jesus, after being crucified, dead and buried, did not physically rise again from the dead, and in the flesh,( ) without again dying, "ascend into heaven," the whole case falls to the ground. these incidents, although stupendous miracles, must have been actual occurrences. if they did not really take place, our task is at an end. if it be asserted that they really did take place their occurrence must be attested by adequate evidence. apologists, whilst protesting that the occurrences in question are believed upon ordinary historical evidence, and that christianity requires no indulgence, but submits itself to the same tests as any other affirmation, do not practically act upon this principle; but, as soon as it is enunciated, introduce a variety of special pleas which remove the case from the domain of history into that of theology, and proceed upon one assumption after another until the fundamental facts become enveloped and, so to say, protected from judicial criticism by a cloud of religious dogmas and hypotheses.( ) by confining our attention to the simple facts which form the basis of the whole superstructure of ecclesiastical christianity, we may avoid much confusion of ideas, and the disappearance of the body from the sepulchre, a point much insisted upon, could have had no significance or reality if the body did not rise and afterwards ascend. a work of this kind may be mentioned in illustration: dr. west-cott's "gospel of the resurrection." the argument of this work is of unquestionable ability, but it is chiefly remarkable, we think, for the manner in which the direct evidence is hurried over, and a mass of assertions and assumptions, the greater part of which is utterly untenable and inadmissible, is woven into specious and eloquent pleading, and does duty for substantial testimony. { } restrict the field of inquiry to reasonable limits. we propose, therefore, to limit our investigation to the evidence for the reality of the resurrection and ascension. what evidence could be regarded as sufficient to establish the reality of such supposed occurrences? the question is one which demands the serious attention and consideration of every thoughtful man. it is obvious that the amount of evidence requisite to satisfy our minds as to the truth of any statement should be measured by the nature of the statement made and, we may as well add, by its practical importance to ourselves. the news that a man was married or a child born last week is received without doubt, because men are married and children are born every day; and although such pieces of gossip are frequently untrue, nothing appears more natural or in accordance with our experience. if we take more distant and less familiar events we have no doubt that a certain monarch was crowned, and that he subsequently died some centuries ago. if we ask for the evidence for the statement, nothing may be forthcoming of a very minute or indubitable nature. no absolute eye-witness of the coronation may have left a clear and detailed narrative of the ceremony; and possibly there may no longer be extant a sufficiently attested document proving with certainty the death of the monarch. there are several considerations, however, which make us perfectly satisfied with the evidence, incomplete as it may be. monarchs are generally crowned and invariably die; and the statement that any one particular monarch was crowned and died is so completely in conformity with experience, that we have no hesitation in believing it in the specific case. we are satisfied to believe such { } ordinary statements upon very slight evidence, both because our experience prepares us to believe that they are true, and because we do not much care whether they are true or not. if life, or even succession to an estate, depended upon either event, the demand for evidence, even in such simple matters, would be immensely intensified. the converse of the statement, however, would not meet with the same reception. would anyone believe the affirmation that alfred the great, for instance, did not die at all? what amount of evidence would be required before such a statement could be pronounced sufficiently attested? universal experience would be so uniformly opposed to the assertion that such a phenomenon had taken place, that probably no evidence which could readily be conceived could ensure the belief of more than a credulous few. the assertion that a man actually died and was buried, and yet afterwards rose from the dead, is still more at variance with human experience. the prolongation of life to long periods is comparatively consistent with experience; and if a life extending to several centuries be incredible it is only so in degree, and is not absolutely contrary to the order of nature, which certainly under present conditions does not favour the supposition of such lengthened existence, but still does not fix hard and fast limits to the life of man. the resurrection of a man who has once been absolutely dead, however, is contrary to all human experience, and to all that we know of the order of nature. if to this we add the assertion that the person so raised from the dead never again died, but after continuing some time longer on earth, ascended bodily to some invisible and inconceivable place called heaven, there to "sit at the right hand of god," the shock to reason and common { } sense becomes so extreme, that it is difficult even to realize the nature of the affirmation. it would be hopeless to endeavour to define the evidence which could establish the reality of the alleged occurrences. as the central doctrines of a religion upon which the salvation of the human race is said to depend, we are too deeply interested to be satisfied with slight evidence or no evidence at all. it has not unfrequently been made a reproach that forensic evidence is required of the reality of divine revelation. such a course is regarded as perfectly preposterous, whether the test be applied to the primary assertion that a revelation has been made at all, or to its contents. what kind of evidence then are we permitted decorously to require upon so momentous a subject? apparently, just so much as apologists can conveniently set before us, and no more. the evidence deemed necessary for the settlement of a scotch peerage case, or a disputed will, is, we do not hesitate to say, infinitely more complete than that which it is thought either pious or right to expect in the case of religion. the actual occurrence of the resurrection and ascension, however, is certainly a matter of evidence and, to retort, it is scarcely decent that any man should be required to believe what is so opposed to human experience, upon more imperfect evidence than is required for the transfer of land or the right to a title, simply because ecclesiastical dogmas are founded upon them, and it is represented that unless they be true "our hope is vain." the testimony requisite to establish the reality of such stupendous miracles can scarcely be realized. proportionately, it should be as unparalleled in its force as those events are in fact. one point, moreover, must never be forgotten. human testimony is exceedingly fallible at its { } best it is liable to error from innumerable causes, and most of all, probably, when religious excitement is present, and disturbing elements of sorrow, fear, doubt, or enthusiasm interfere with the calmness of judgment. when any assertion is made which contradicts unvarying experience, upon evidence which experience knows to be universally liable to error, there cannot be much hesitation in disbelieving the assertion and preferring belief in the order of nature. and when evidence proceeds from an age not only highly exposed to error, from ignorance of natural laws, superstition, and religious excitement, but prolific in fabulous reports and untenable theories, it cannot be received without the gravest suspicion. we make these brief remarks, in anticipation, as nothing is more essential in the discussion upon which we are about to enter than a proper appreciation of the allegations which are to be tested, and of the nature of the testimony required for their belief. we shall not limit our inquiry to the testimony of paul, but shall review the whole of the evidence adduced for the resurrection and ascension. hitherto, our examination of the historical books of the new testament has been mainly for the purpose of ascertaining their character, and the value of their evidence for miracles and the reality of divine revelation. it is unnecessary for us here minutely to recapitulate the results. the acts of the apostles, we have shown, cannot be received as testimony of the slightest weight upon any of the points before us. written by an unknown author, who was not an eye-witness of the miracles related; who describes events not as they occurred, but as his pious imagination supposed they ought to have occurred; who seldom touches history without transforming it by legend until the { } original elements can scarcely be distinguished; who puts his own words and sentiments into the mouths of the apostles and other persons of his narrative; and who represents almost every phase of the church in the apostolic age as influenced, or directly produced, by means of supernatural agency; such a work is of no value as evidence for occurrences which are in contradiction to all human experience. briefly to state the case of the gospels in other words than our own, we repeat the honest statement of the able writer quoted at the beginning of this chapter: "in the first place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the gospels are not the strongest evidence for the christian miracles. only one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of an apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed."(l) we may add that the third synoptic does not, in the estimation of any one who has examined the acts of the apostles, gain additional credibility by being composed by the same author as the latter work. the writers of the four gospels are absolutely unknown to us, and in the case of three of them, it is not even affirmed that they were eyewitnesses of the resurrection and ascension and other miracles narrated. the undeniably doubtful authorship of the fourth gospel, not to make a more positive statement here, renders this work, which was not written until upwards of half a century, at the very least, after the death of jesus, incapable of proving anything in regard to the resurrection and ascension. a much stronger statement might be made, but we refer readers to our former volumes, and we shall learn something more of the character of the gospel narratives as we proceed. although we cannot attach any value to the gospels { } as evidence, we propose, before taking the testimony of paul, to survey the various statements made by them regarding the astounding miracles we are discussing. enough has been said to show that we cannot accept any statement as true simply because it is made by a gospel or gospels. when it is related in the first synoptic, for instance, that pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "i am innocent of this man's blood: see ye to it,"( )--an incident to which no reference, be it said in passing, is made by the other evangelists, although it is sufficiently remarkable to have deserved notice,--we cannot of course assume that pilate actually said or did anything of the kind. a comparison of the various accounts of the resurrection and ascension, however, and careful examination of their details, will be of very great use, by enabling us to appreciate the position of the case apart from the evidence of paul. the indefinite impression fostered by apologists, that the evidence of the gospels supplements and completes the evidence of the apostle, and forms an aggregate body of testimony of remarkable force and volume, must be examined, and a clear conception formed of the whole case. one point may at once be mentioned before we enter upon our examination of the gospels. the evangelists narrate such astonishing occurrences as the resurrection and ascension with perfect composure and absence of surprise. this characteristic is even made an argument for the truth of their narrative. the impression made upon our minds, however, is the very reverse of that which apologists desire us to receive. the writers do not in the least degree seem to have realised the { } exceptional character of the occurrences they relate, and betray the assurance of persons writing in an ignorant and superstitious age, whose minds have become too familiar with the supernatural to be at all surprised either by a resurrection from the dead or a bodily ascension. miracles in their eyes have lost their strangeness and seem quite common-place. it will be seen as we examine the narratives that a stupendous miracle, or a convulsion of nature, is thrown in by one or omitted by another as a mere matter of detail. an earthquake and the resurrection of many bodies of saints are mere trifles which can be inserted without wonder or omitted without regret the casual and momentary expression of hesitation to believe, which is introduced, is evidently nothing more than a rhetorical device to heighten the reality of the scene. it would have been infinitely more satisfactory had we been able to perceive that these witnesses, instead of being genuine denizens of the age of miracles, had really understood the astounding nature of the occurrences they report, and did not consider a miracle the most natural thing in the world. chapter ii. the evidence of the gospels in order more fully to appreciate the nature of the narratives which the four evangelists give of the last hours of the life of jesus, we may take them up at the point where, mocked and buffeted by the roman soldiers, he is finally led away to be crucified. let no one suppose that, in freely criticising the gospels, we regard without emotion the actual incidents which lie at the bottom of these narratives. no one can form to himself any adequate conception of the terrible sufferings of the master, maltreated and insulted by a base and brutal multitude, too degraded to understand his noble character, and too ignorant to appreciate his elevated teaching, without pain; and to follow his course from the tribunal which sacrificed him to jewish popular clamour to the spot where he ended a brief but self-sacrificing life by the shameful death of a slave may well make sympathy take the place of criticism. profound veneration for the great teacher, however, and earnest interest in all that concerns his history rather command serious and unhesitating examination of the statements made with regard to him, than discourage an attempt to ascertain the truth; and it would be anything but respect for his memory to accept without question the gospel accounts of his life { } simply because they were composed with the desire to glorify him. according to the synoptics, when jesus is led away to be crucified, the roman guard entrusted with the duty of executing the cruel sentence find a man of cyrene, simon by name, and compel him to carry the cross.( ) it was customary for those condemned to crucifixion to carry the cross, or at least the main portion of it, themselves to the place of execution, and no explanation is given by the synoptists for the deviation from this practice which they relate. the fourth gospel, however, does not appear to know anything of this incident or of simon of cyrene, but distinctly states that jesus bore his own cross.( ) on the way to golgotha, according to the third gospel, jesus is followed by a great multitude of the people, and of women who were bewailing and lamenting him, and he addresses to them a few prophetic sentences.( ) we might be surprised at the singular fact that there is no reference to this incident in any other gospel, and that words of jesus, so weighty in themselves and spoken at so supreme a moment, should not elsewhere have been recorded, but for the fact that, from internal evidence, the address must be assigned to a period subsequent to the destruction of jerusalem. the other evangelists may, therefore, well ignore it. { } it was the custom to give those about to be crucified a draught of wine containing some strong opiate, which in some degree alleviated the intense suffering of that mode of death. mark( ) probably refers to this (xv. ) when he states that, on reaching the place of execution, "they gave him wine [------] mingled with myrrh." the fourth gospel has nothing of this. matthew says (xxvii. ): "they gave him vinegar [------] to drink mingled with gall"( ) [------]. even if, instead of [------] with the alexandrian and a majority of mss., we read [------], "wine," with the sinaitic, vatican, and some other ancient codices, this is a curious statement, and is well worthy of a moment's notice as suggestive of the way in which these narratives were written. the conception of a suffering messiah, it is well known, was more particularly supported, by new testament writers, by attributing a messianic character to ps. xxii., lxix., and isaiah liii., and throughout the narrative of the passion we are perpetually referred to these and other scriptures as finding their fulfilment in the sufferings of jesus. the first synoptist found in ps. lxix. (sept. lxviii. ): "they gave me also gall [------] for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar [------] to drink;" and apparently in order to make the supposed fulfilment correspond as closely as possible, he combined the "gall" of the food with the vinegar or wine in strangely literal fashion,( ) very characteristic, however, of we shall, for the sake of brevity, call the gospels by the names assigned to them in the canon. there have been many attempts to explain away [------], and to make it mean either a species of vermuth or any bitter substance (olahausen, leidensgeech., ); but the great mass of critics rightly retain its meaning, "gall." so ewald, meyer, bleek, strauss, weisse, schenkel, yolk-mar, alford, wordsworth, &c, &c. { } the whole of the evangelists. luke, who seems not to have understood the custom known perhaps to mark, represents (xxiii. ) the soldiers as mocking jesus by "offering him vinegar "(l) [------]; he omits the gall, but probably refers to the same psalm without being so falsely literal as matthew. we need not enter into the discussion as to the chronology of the passion week, regarding which there is so much discrepancy in the accounts of the fourth gospel and of the synoptics, nor shall we pause minutely to deal with the irreconcilable difference which, it is admitted,( ) exists in their statement of the hours at which the events of the last fatal day occurred. the fourth gospel (xix. ) represents pilate as bringing jesus forth to the jews "about the sixth hour" (noon). mark (xv. ), in obvious agreement with the other synoptics as further statements prove, distinctly says: "and it was the third hour ( o'clock a.m.), and they crucified him." at the sixth hour (noon), according to the three synoptists, there was darkness over the earth till about the ninth hour ( o'clock p.m.), shortly after which time luke omits the subsequent offer of "vinegar" (probably the pasco of the roman soldiers) mentioned by the other evangelists. we presume the reference in xxiii. to be the same as the act described in mt xxvii. and mk. xv. . { } jesus expired.( ) as, according to the fourth gospel, the sentence was not even passed before midday, and some time must be allowed for preparation and going to the place of execution, it is clear that there is a very wide discrepancy between the hours at which jesus was crucified and died, unless, as regards the latter point, we take agreement in all as to the hour of death. in this case, commencing at the hour of the fourth gospel and ending with that of the synoptics, jesus must have expired after being less than three hours on the cross. according to the synoptics, and also, if we assign a later hour for the death, according to the fourth gospel, he cannot have been more than six hours on the cross. we shall presently see that this remarkably rapid death has an important bearing upon the history and the views formed regarding it. it is known that crucifixion, besides being the most shameful mode of death, and indeed chiefly reserved for slaves and the lowest criminals, was one of the most lingering and atrociously cruel punishments ever invented by the malignity of man. persons crucified, it is stated and admitted,( ) generally lived for at least twelve hours, and sometimes even survived the excruciating tortures of the cross for three days. we shall not further anticipate remarks which must hereafter be made regarding this. we need not do more than again point out that no two of the gospels agree upon so simple, yet important, a point as the inscription on the cross.( ) it is argued that "a close { } examination of the narratives furnishes no sufficient reason for supposing that all proposed to give the same or the entire inscription," and, after some curious reasoning, it is concluded that "there is at least no possibility of showing any inconsistency on the strictly literal interpretation of the words of the evangelist."( ) on the contrary, we had ventured to suppose that, in giving a form of words said to have been affixed to the cross, the evangelists intended to give the form actually used, and consequently "the same" and "entire inscription," which must have been short; and we consider it quite inconceivable that such was not their deliberate intention, however imperfectly fulfilled. we pass on merely to notice a curious point in connection with an incident related by all the gospels. it is stated that the roman soldiers who crucified jesus divided his garments amongst them, casting lots to determine what part each should take. the clothing of criminals executed was the perquisite of the soldiers who performed the duty, and there is nothing improbable in the story that the four soldiers decided by lot the partition of the garments--indeed there is every reason to suppose that such was the practice. the incident is mentioned as the direct fulfilment of the. ps. xxii. , which is quoted literally from the septuagint version (xxi. ) by the author of the fourth gospel. he did not, however, understand the passage, or disregarded its true meaning,( ) and in order to make the incident accord { } better, as he supposed, with the prophetic psalm, he represents that the soldiers amicably parted the rest of his garments amongst them without lot, but cast lots for the coat, which was without seam: xix. . "they said, therefore, among themselves: let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled: they parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots. these things, therefore, the soldiers did." the evangelist does not perceive that the two parts of the sentence in the psalm really refer to the same action, but exhibits the partition of the garments and the lots for the vesture as separately fulfilled. the synoptists apparently divide the whole by lot.( ) they do not expressly refer to the psalm, however, except in the received text of matth. xxvii. , into which and some other mss. the quotation has been interpolated.( ) that the narrative of the gospels, instead of being independent and genuine history, is constructed upon the lines of supposed messianic psalms and passages of the old testament will become increasingly evident as we proceed. it is stated by all the gospels that two malefactors--the first and second calling them "robbers"--were crucified with jesus, the one on the right hand and the other on the left. the statement in mark xv. , that this fulfilled isaiah liii. , which is found in our received text, is omitted by all the oldest codices, and is an interpolation,( ) but we shall hereafter have to speak of this point in connection with another matter, and we now "certainly an interpolation." wettcott, int. to study of gospels, p. , n. . "certainly an interpolation." westcott, lb. p. , n. . { } merely point out that, though the verse was thus inserted here, it is placed in the mouth of jesus himself by the third synoptist (xxii. ), and the whole passage from which it was taken has evidently largely influenced the composition of the narrative before us. according to the first and second gospels,( ) the robbers joined with the chief priests and the scribes and elders and those who passed by in mocking and reviling jesus. this is directly contradicted by the third synoptist, who states that only one of the malefactors did so (xxiii. flf.): "but the other answering rebuked him and said: dost thou not even fear god seeing thou art in the same condemnation? and we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man did nothing amiss. and he said: jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. and he said unto him: verily, i say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." it requires very little examination to detect that this story is legendary,( ) and cannot be maintained as historical. those who dwell upon its symbolical character( ) do nothing to establish its veracity. this exemplary robber speaks like an apostle, and in praying jesus as the messiah to remember him when he came into his kingdom, he shows much more than apostolic appreciation of the claims and character of jesus. the { } reply of jesus, moreover, contains a statement not only wholly contradictory of jewish belief as to the place of departed spirits, but of all christian doctrine at the time as to the descent of jesus into hades. into this, however, it is needless for us to go.( ) not only do the other gospels show no knowledge of so interesting an episode, but, as we have pointed out, the first and second synoptics positively exclude it. we shall see, moreover, that there is a serious difficulty in understanding how this conversation on the cross, which is so exclusively the property of the third synoptist, could have been reported to him. the synoptics represent the passers by and the chief priests, scribes, and elders, as mocking jesus as he hung on the cross. the fourth gospel preserves total silence as to all this. it is curious, also, that the mocking is based upon that described in the psalm xxii., to which we have already several times had to refer. in v. f. we have: "all they that see me laughed me to scorn: they shot out the lip; they shook the head (saying), . he trusted on the lord, let him deliver him, let him save him (seeing) that he delighteth in him."( ) compare with this mt. xxvii. ff., mk. xv. ff., luke xxiii . is it possible to suppose that the chief priests and elders and scribes could actually have quoted the words of this psalm, there put into the mouth of the psalmist's enemies, as the first synoptist represents (xxvii )?( ) it is obvious that the speeches ascribed { } to the chief priests and elders can be nothing more than the expressions which the writers considered suitable to them, and the fact that they seek their inspiration in a psalm which they suppose to be messianic is suggestive. we have already mentioned that the fourth gospel says nothing of any mocking speeches. the author, however, narrates an episode (xix. - ) in which the dying jesus is represented as confiding his mother to the care of "the disciple whom he loved," of which in their turn the synoptists seem to be perfectly ignorant. we have already elsewhere remarked that there is no evidence whatever that there was any disciple whom jesus specially loved, except the repeated statement in this gospel. no other work of the new testament contains a hint of such an individual, and much less that he was the apostle john. nor is there any evidence that any one of the disciples took the mother of jesus to his own home. there is, therefore, no external confirmation of this episode; but there is, on the contrary, much which leads to the conclusion that it is not historical.( ) there has been much discussion as to whether four women are mentioned (xix. ), or whether "his mother's sister" is represented as "mary, the wife of clopas," or was a different person. there are, we think, reasons for concluding that there were four, but in the doubt we shall not base any argument on the point. the synoptics( ) distinctly state that "the women that followed him from galilee," among which were "mary magdalene and mary { } the mother of james and joseph and the mother of zebedee's sons,"(l) and, as the third synoptic says, "all his acquaintance"( ) were standing "afar off" [------]. they are unanimous in saying this, and there is every reason for supposing that they are correct.( ) this is consequently a contradiction of the account in the fourth gospel that john and the women were standing "by the cross of jesus." olshausen, lucke and others suggest that they subsequently came from a distance up to the cross, but the statement of the synoptists is made at the close, and after this scene is supposed to have taken place. the opposite conjecture, that from standing close to the cross they removed to a distance has little to recommend it. both explanations are equally arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. it may be well, in connection with this, to refer to the various sayings and cries ascribed by the different evangelists to jesus on the cross. we have already mentioned the conversation with the "penitent thief," which is peculiar to the third gospel, and now that with the "beloved disciple," which is only in the fourth. the third synoptic( ) states that, on being crucified, jesus said, "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," a saying which is in the spirit of jesus and worthy of him, but of which the other gospels do not take any notice.( ) the fourth gospel again has a cry (xix. ): "after this, jesus knowing that all things are now fulfilled, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith: { } i thirst."( ) the majority of critics( ) understand by this that "i thirst" is said in order "that the scripture might be fulfilled" by the offer of the vinegar, related in the following verse. the scripture referred to is of course ps. lxix. : "they gave me also gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar [------] to drink;" which we have already quoted in connection with matth. xxvii. . the third synoptic (xxiii. ) represents the vinegar as being offered in mockery at a much earlier period, and matthew and mark( ) connect the offer of the vinegar with quite a different cry from that in the fourth gospel. nothing could be more natural than that, after protracted agony, the patient sufferer should cry: "i thirst," but the dogmatic purpose, which dictates the whole narrative in the fourth gospel, is rendered obvious by the reference of such a cry to a supposed messianic prophecy. this is further displayed by the statement (v. ) that the sponge with vinegar was put "upon hyssop" [------],--the two synoptics have "on a reed" [------],--which the author probably uses in association with the paschal lamb,( ) an idea present to his mind throughout the { } passion. the first and second synoptics( ) represent the last cry of jesus to have been a quotation from ps. xxii. : "eli (or mk., eloi), eli, lema sabacthani? that is to say: my god, my god, why didst thou forsake me?" this, according to them, evidently, was the last articulate utterance of the expiring master, for they merely add that "when he cried again with a loud voice," jesus yielded up his spirit.( ) neither of the other gospels has any mention of this cry. the third gospel substitutes: "and when jesus cried with a loud voice, he said: father, into thy hands i commend my spirit, and having said this he expired."( ) this is an almost literal quotation from the septuagint version of ps. xxxi. . the fourth gospel has a totally different cry (xix. ), for, on receiving the vinegar, which accomplished the scripture, he represents jesus as saying: "it is finished" [------], and immediately expiring. it will be observed that seven sayings are attributed to jesus on the cross, of which the first two gospels have only one, the third synoptic three, and the fourth gospel three. we do not intend to express any opinion here in favour of any of these, but we merely point out the remarkable fact that, with the exception of the one cry in the first two synoptics, each gospel has ascribed different sayings to the dying master, and not only no two of them agree, but in some important instances the statement of the one evangelist seems absolutely to exclude the accounts of the others. every one knows the hackneyed explanation of apologists, but in works which repeat each other so much elsewhere, it certainly is a curious phenomenon that there is so little { } agreement here. if all the master's disciples "forsook him and fled,"( ) and his few friends and acquaintances stood "afar off" regarding his sufferings, it is readily conceivable that pious tradition had unlimited play. we must, however, return to the cry recorded in matthew and mark,( ) the only one about which two witnesses agree. both of them give this quotation from ps. xxii. in aramaic: eli (mark: eloi), eli,( ) lema sabacthani. the purpose is clearly to enable the reader to understand what follows, which we quote from the first gospel: "and some of them that stood there, when they heard it said: this man calleth for elijah.... the rest said, let be, let us see whether elijah cometh to save him."( ) it is impossible to confuse "eli" or "eloi" with "elijahu"( ) and the explanations suggested by apologists are not sufficient to remove a difficulty which seems to betray the legendary character of the statement. the mistake of supposing that jesus called for elijah could not possibly have been made by those who spoke aramaic; that strangers not perfectly understanding aramaic should be here intended cannot be maintained, for the suggestion is represented as adopted by "the rest." the roman soldiers had probably never heard of elijah; and there is nothing whatever to support the allegation of mockery( ) as accounting for the singular { } episode. the verse of the psalm was too well known to the jews to admit of any suggested play upon words. the three synoptics state that, from the sixth hour (mid-day) to the ninth ( o'clock), "there was darkness over all the earth" [------].( ) the third gospel adds: "the sun having failed" [------]( ) by the term "all the earth" some critics( ) maintain that the evangelist merely meant the holy land,( ) whilst others hold that he uses the expression in its literal sense.( ) the fourth gospel takes no notice of this darkness. such a phenomenon is not a trifle to be ignored in any account of the crucifixion, if it actually occurred. the omission of all mention of it either amounts to a denial of its occurrence or betrays most suspicious familiarity with supernatural interference. there have been many efforts made to explain this darkness naturally, or at least to find some allusion to it in contemporary history, all of which have signally failed. as the moon was at the full, it is admitted that the darkness could not have been an eclipse.( ) the fathers { } appealed to phlegon the chronicler, who mentions( ) an eclipse of the sun about this period accompanied by an earthquake, and also to a similar occurrence referred to by eusebius,( ) probably quoted from the historian thallus, but, of course, modern knowledge has dispelled the illusion that these phenomena have any connection with the darkness we are discussing, and the theory that the evangelists are confirmed in their account by this evidence is now generally abandoned.( ) it is apart from our object to show how common it was amongst classical and other writers to represent nature as sympathising with national or social disasters;( ) and as a poetical touch this remarkable darkness of the synoptists, of which no one else knows anything, is quite intelligible. the statement, however, is as seriously and deliberately made as any other in their narrative, and does not add to its credibility. it is palpable that the account is mythical,( ) and it bears a strange likeness to passages in the old testament, from the imagery of which the representation in all probability was derived.( ) the first and second gospels state that when jesus { } cried with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit, "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."( ) the third synoptic associates this occurrence with the eclipse of the sun, and narrates it before the final cry and death of the master.( ) the fourth gospel takes no notice of so extraordinary a phenomenon. the question might be asked: how could the chief priests, who do not appear to have been at all convinced by such a miracle, but still continued their invincible animosity against the christian sect, reveal the occurrence of such a wonder, of which there is no mention elsewhere? here again the account is legendary and symbolical,( ) and in the spirit of the age of miracles.( ) the first synoptist, however, has further marvels to relate. he states in continuation of the passage quoted above: "and the earth was shaken [------] and the rocks were rent and the sepulchres were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept were raised; and they came out of the sepulchres after his resurrection, and entered into the holy city and appeared unto many."( ) how great must be the amazement of anyone who may have been inclined to suppose the gospels soberly historical works, on finding that the other three evangelists do not even mention these { } astounding occurrences related by the first synoptist! an earthquake [------]( ) and the still more astounding resurrection of many saints who appeared unto "many," and, therefore, an event by no means secret and unknown to all but the writer, and yet three other writers, who give accounts of the crucifixion and death of jesus, and who enter throughout into very minute details, do not even condescend to mention them! nor does any other new testament writer chronicle them. it is unnecessary to say that the passage has been a very serious difficulty for apologists; and one of the latest writers of this school, reproducing the theories of earlier critics, deals with it in a life of christ, which "is avowedly and unconditionally the work of a believer,"( ) as follows: "an earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled away from their places the great stones which closed and covered the cavern sepulchres of the jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of many to have disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with ghostly visitants, who after christ had risen appeared to linger in the holy city." in a note he adds "only in some such way as this can i account for the singular and wholly isolated allusion of matt. xxvii. , ."( ) it is worthy of note, and we may hereafter { } refer to the point, that learned divines thus do not scruple to adopt the "vision hypothesis" of the resurrection. even if the resurrection of the saints so seriously related by the evangelist be thus disposed of, and it be assumed that the other gospels, likewise adopting the "vision" explanation, consequently declined to give an objective place in their narrative to what they believed to be a purely subjective and unreal phenomenon, there still remains the earthquake, to which supernatural incident of the crucifixion none of the other evangelists think it worth while to refer. need we argue that the earthquake( ) is as mythical as the resurrection of the saints?( ) in some apocryphal writings even the names of some of these risen saints are given.( ) as the case actually stands, with these marvellous incidents related solely by the first synoptist and ignored by the other evangelists, it would seem superfluous to enter upon more detailed criticism of the passage, and to point out the incongruity of the { } fact that these saints are said to be raised from the dead just as the messiah expires, or the strange circumstance that, although the sepulchres are said to have been opened at that moment and the resurrection to have then taken place, it is stated that they only came out of their graves after the resurrection of jesus. the allegation, moreover, that they were raised from the dead at that time, and before the resurrection of jesus, virtually contradicts the saying of the apocalypse (i. ) that jesus was the "first begotten of the dead," and of paul ( cor. xv. ) that he was "the first fruits of them who have fallen asleep."( ) paul's whole argument is opposed to such a story; for he does not base the resurrection of the dead upon the death of jesus, but, in contradistinction, upon his resurrection only. the synoptist evidently desires to associate the resurrection of the saints with the death of jesus to render that event more impressive, but delays the completion of it in order to give a kind of precedence to the resurrection of the master. the attempt leads to nothing but confusion. what could be the object of such a resurrection? it could not be represented as any effect produced by the death of jesus, nor even by his alleged resurrection, for what dogmatic connection could there be between that event and the fact that a few saints only were raised from their graves, whilst it was not pretended that the dead "saints" generally participated in this resurrection? no intimation is given that their appearance to many was for any special purpose, and certainly no practical result has ever been traced to it. finally we might ask: what became of these saints raised from the dead? did they die again? or did they also "ascend into heaven?"( ) can the author of the apocalypse, or paul, ever have heard of the raising of lazarus? { } a little reflection will show that these questions are pertinent. it is almost inconceivable that any serious mind could maintain the actual truth of such a story, upon such evidence. its objective truth not being maintainable, however, the character of the work which advances such an unhesitating statement is determined, and at least the value of its testimony can without difficulty be settled. the continuation of this episode in the first synoptic is quite in keeping with its commencement. it is stated: "but when the centurion and they that were with him watching jesus saw the earthquake [------] and the things that were done [------] they feared greatly, saying, truly this was a son of god" [------].( ) in mark the statement is very curiously varied: "and when the centurion who stood over against him saw that he so expired, he said: truly this man was a son of god."( ) it is argued on the one hand that the centurion's wonder here was caused by jesus dying with so loud a cry, and the reading of many mss. would clearly support this;( ) and on the other that the cause of his exclamation was the unexpectedly rapid death of jesus. whichever view be taken, the centurion's deduction, it must be admitted, rests upon { } singularly inconclusive reasoning. we venture to think that it is impossible that a roman soldier could either have been led to form such an opinion upon such grounds, or to express it in such terms. in luke, we have a third reading: "but when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified god, saying: certainly this man was righteous"( ) [------]. there is nothing here about the "son of god;" but when the writer represents the roman soldier as glorifying god, the narrative does not seem much more probable than that of the other synoptists. the fourth evangelist of course does not refer to any such episode, but, as usual, he introduces a very remarkable incident of his own, of which the synoptists, who record such peculiar details of what passed, seem very strangely to know nothing. the fourth evangelist states: "the jews, therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath, (for that sabbath-day was a high day), besought pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be taken away. so the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him, but when they came to jesus, as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith there came out blood and water. and he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and that man knoweth that he saith what is true, that ye also may believe. for these things came to pass that the scripture might be fulfilled: a bone of him shall not be broken. and again another scripture saith: they shall look on him whom they pierced."( ) it is inconceivable that, if this { } actually occurred, and occurred more especially that the "scripture might be fulfilled," the other three evangelists could thus totally ignore it all.( ) the second synoptist does more: he not only ignores but excludes it, for (xv. f.) he represents joseph as begging the body of jesus from pilate "when evening was now come." "and pilate marvelled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been long dead. and when he knew it of the centurion he gave the corpse to joseph."( ) now, although there could be no doubt on the point, the fourth gospel clearly states (xix. , [------] that joseph made his request for the body after the order had been given by pilate to break the legs of the crucified, and after it had been executed as above described. if pilate had already given the order to break the legs, how is it possible he could have marvelled, or acted as he is described in mark to have done? it is well known that the crurifragium, which is here applied, was not usually an accompaniment of crucifixion, though it may have been sometimes employed along with it,( ) but that it was a distinct punishment. it consisted in breaking, with hammers or clubs, the bones of the condemned from the hips to the feet. we shall not discuss whether in the present case this measure really was adopted or not. the representation is that the jews requested pilate to break the legs of the crucified that the bodies might be removed before the sabbath, and { } that the order was given and executed. the first point to be noted is the very singular manner in which the leg-breaking was performed. the soldiers are said to have broken the legs of the first and then of the other who was crucified with jesus, thus passing over jesus in the first instance; and then the evangelist says: "_but when they came to jesus_, as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side." this order of procedure is singular; but the whole conduct of the guard is so extraordinary that such details become comparatively insignificant. an order having been given to the roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the jews, to break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did not execute it in the case of jesus! it is not reasonable to suppose, however, that roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience inflicted by roman military law. it is argued that they saw that jesus was already dead, and therefore that it was not necessary to break his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way: they are disciplined to obey. the fact is, however, that the certainty that jesus was dead already did not actually exist in their minds, and could scarcely have existed seeing that the death was so singularly rapid, for in that case why should the soldier have pierced his side with a spear? the only conceivable motive for doing so was to make sure that jesus really was dead;( ) but is it possible to suppose that a roman soldier, being in the slightest doubt, actually chose to assure himself in { } this way when he might still more effectually have done so by simply obeying the order of his superior and breaking the legs? the whole episode is manifestly un-historical.( ) it is clear that to fulfil in a marked way the prophecies which the writer had in his mind, and wished specially to apply to jesus, it was necessary that, in the first place, there should have been a distinct danger of the bones being broken, and at the same time of the side not being pierced. the order to break the legs of the crucified is therefore given, but an extraordinary exception is made in favour of jesus, and a thrust with the lance substituted, so that both passages of the scripture are supposed to be fulfilled.( ) what scriptures, however, are fulfilled? the first: "a bone of him shall not be broken," is merely the prescription with regard to the paschal lamb, ex. xii. ,( ) and the dogmatic view of the fourth evangelist leads him throughout to represent jesus as the true paschal lamb. the second is zech. xii. ,( ) and any one who reads the passage, even without the assistance of learned exegesis, may perceive that it has no such application as our evangelist gives it. we shall pass over, as not absolutely necessary for our immediate purpose, very many important details of the episode; but regarding this part of the subject we may say that we consider it evident that, if an order was given to break the legs of the crucified upon this occasion, that { } order must have been executed upon jesus equally with any others who may have been crucified with him. there has been much discussion as to the intention of the author in stating that, from the wound made by the lance, there forthwith came out "blood and water" [------]; and likewise as to whether the special testimony here referred to in the third person is to attest more immediately the flow of blood and water, or the whole episode.( ) in regard to the latter point, we need not pause to discuss the question.( ) as to the "blood and water," some see in the statement made an intention to show the reality of the death of jesus,( ) whilst others more rightly regard the phenomenon described as a representation of a supernatural and symbolical incident,( ) closely connected with the whole dogmatic view of the gospel. it is impossible not to see in this the same idea as that expressed in john v. : "this is he that came by water and blood, jesus christ; not in the water only, but in the water and the blood."( ) as a natural incident it cannot be entertained, for in no sense but mere quibbling could it be said that "blood and water" could flow from such a wound, and as a supernatural { } phenomenon it must be rejected. as a proof of the reality of the death of jesus, it could only have been thought of at a time when gross ignorance prevailed upon all medical subjects. we shall not here discuss the reality of the death of jesus, but we may merely point out that the almost unprecedentedly rapid decease of jesus was explained by origen( ) and some of the fathers as miraculous. it has been argued that the thrust of the lance may have been intended to silence those objectors who might have denied the actual death on the ground that the legs of jesus were not broken like those of the two malefactors,( ) and it certainly is generally quoted as having assured the fact of death. the statement that blood flowed from the wound, however, by no means supports the allegation and, although we may make little use of the argument, it is right to say that there is no evidence of any serious kind advanced of the reality of the death of jesus, here or in the other gospels.( ) the author of the fourth gospel himself seems to betray that this episode is a mere interpolation of his own into a narrative to which it does not properly belong.( ) according to his own account (xix. ), the jews besought pilate that the legs might be broken and that the bodies "might be taken away" [------], the order to do this was obviously given, it has likewise been thought that the representation in mark xv. , that pilate marvelled at the rapid death of jesus, and sent for the centurion to ascertain the fact, was made to meet similar doubts, or at least to give assurance of the reality of the death. { } for the legs are forthwith broken and of coarse, immediately after, the bodies in pursuance of the same order would have been taken away. as soon as the evangelist has secured his purpose of showing how the scriptures were fulfilled by means of this episode, he takes up the story as though it had not been interrupted, and proceeds v. : "after these things" [------], that is to say after the legs of the malefactors had been broken and the side of jesus pierced, joseph besought pilate that he might take away the body of jesus, and pilate gave leave. but, if v. f. be historical, the body must already have been taken away. all the synoptics agree with the fourth gospel in stating that joseph of arimathaea begged for and obtained the body of jesus from pilate.( ) the second and third synoptics describe him as belonging to the council, but the first gospel merely calls him "a rich man," whilst the fourth omits both of these descriptions. they all call him a disciple of jesus--secretly for fear of the jews, the fourth gospel characteristically adds--although the term that he was "waiting for the kingdom of god," used by the second and third gospels, is somewhat vague. the fourth gospel, however, introduces a second personage in the shape of nicodemus, "who at the first came to him by night,"( ) and who, it will be remembered, had previously been described as "a ruler of the jews."( ) the synoptics do not once mention such a person, either in the narrative of the passion or in the earlier chapters, and there are more than doubts as to his historical character.( ) the accounts of the entombment given by the three according to luke xxiii. , joseph actually "took down" the body. { } synoptists, or at least by the second and third, distinctly exclude the narrative of the fourth gospel, both as regards nicodemus and the part he is represented as taking. the contradictions which commence here between the account of the fourth gospel and the synoptics, in fact, are of the most glaring and important nature, and demand marked attention. the fourth gospel states that, having obtained permission from pilate, joseph came and took the body of jesus away. "and there came also nicodemus,... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. they took, therefore, the body of jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the jews is to bury. now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre wherein was never man yet laid. there, therefore, on account of the preparation of the jews [------], they laid jesus, for the sepulchre was at hand" [------].( ) according to the first synoptic, when joseph took the body, he simply wrapped it "in clean linen" [------] and "laid it in his own new sepulchre, which he hewed in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."( ) there is no mention of spices or any anointing of the body,( ) and the statement that the women provide for this is not made in this gospel. according to the writer, the burial is complete, and the sepulchre finally closed. mary magdalene and the other mary come merely "to behold the sepulchre" at the end of the { } sabbath.( ) the fourth evangelist apparently does not know anything of the sepulchre being joseph's own tomb, and the body is, according to him, although folly embalmed, only laid in the sepulchre in the garden on account of the sabbath and because it was at hand. we shall refer to this point, which must be noted, further on. there are very striking differences between these two accounts, but the narratives of the second and third synoptists are still more emphatically contradictory of both. in mark,( ) we are told that joseph "bought linen, and took him down and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which had been hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the sepulchre." there is no mention here of any embalming performed by joseph or nicodemus, nor are any particulars given as to the ownership of the sepulchre, or the reasons for its selection. we are, however, told:( ) "and when the sabbath was past, mary magdalene and mary the mother of james, and salome, bought spices that they might come and anoint him." it is distinctly stated in connection with the entombment, moreover, in agreement with the first synoptic:( ) "and mary magdalene and mary the mother of joses beheld where he was laid."( ) according to this account and that of the first gospel, the women, having remained to the last and seen the body deposited in the sepulchre, knew so little of its having been embalmed by joseph and nicodemus, that they actually purchase the spices and come to perform that office themselves. in luke, the statement is still more specific, in { } agreement with mark, and in contradiction to the fourth gospel. joseph took down the body "and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.... and women who had come with him out of galilee followed after, and beheld the sepulchre _and how his body was laid_. and they returned and prepared spices and ointments." upon the first day of the week, the author adds: "they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had prepared."( ) which of these accounts are we to believe? according to the first gospel, there is no embalmment at all; according to the second and third gospels, the embalmment is undertaken by the women, and not by joseph and nicodemus, but is never carried out; according to the fourth gospel, the embalmment is completed on friday evening by joseph and nicodemus, and not by the women. according to the first gospel, the burial is completed on friday evening; according to the second and third, it is only provisional; and according to the fourth, the embalmment is final, but it is doubtful whether the entombment is final or temporary; several critics consider it to have been only provisional.( ) in mark, the women buy the spices "when the sabbath was past" [------];( ) in luke before it has begun;( ) and in matthew and john they do not buy them at all. in the first and fourth gospels, the women come after the sabbath merely to behold the sepulchre,( ) and in the second and third, they bring the spices to complete the burial. { } amid these conflicting statements we may suggest one consideration. it is not probable, in a hot climate, that a wounded body, hastily laid in a sepulchre on friday evening before six o'clock, would be disturbed again on sunday morning for the purpose of being anointed and embalmed. corruption would, under the circumstances, already have commenced. besides, as keim(l) has pointed out, the last duties to the dead were not forbidden amongst the jews on the sabbath, and there is really no reason why any care for the body of the master which reverence or affection might have dictated should not at once have been bestowed. the enormous amount of myrrh and aloes--"about a hundred pound weight" [------]--brought by nicodemus has excited much discussion, and adds to the extreme improbability of the story related by the fourth evangelist.( ) to whatever weight the [------] may be reduced, the quantity specified is very great; and it is a question whether the body thus enveloped "as the manner of the jews is to bury" could have entered the sepulchre. the practice of embalming the dead, although well known amongst the jews, and invariable in the case of kings and noble or very wealthy persons, was by no means generally prevalent in the burial of gamaliel the elder, chief of the party of the pharisees, it is stated that over pounds of balsam were burnt in his honour by the proselyte onkelos;( ) but this quantity, which was considered very { } remarkable, is totally eclipsed by the provision of nicodemus. the key to the whole of this history of the burial of jesus, however, is to be found in the celebrated chapt. liii. of "isaiah." we have already, in passing, pointed out that, in the third gospel (xxii. ), jesus is represented as saying: "for i say unto you, that this which is written must be accomplished in me: and he was reckoned among transgressors." the same quotation from is. liii. is likewise interpolated in mk. xv. . now the whole representation of the burial and embalmment of jesus is evidently based upon the same chapter, and more especially upon v. , which is wrongly rendered both in the authorized version and in the septuagint, in the latter of which the passage reads: "i will give the wicked for his grave and the rich for his death."( ) the evangelists taking this to be the sense of the passage, which they suppose to be a messianic prophecy, have represented the death of jesus as being with the wicked, crucified as he is between two robbers; and through joseph of arimathaea, significantly called "a rich man" [------] by the first synoptist, especially according to the fourth evangelist by his addition of the counsellor nicodemus and his hundred pounds weight of mingled myrrh and aloes, as being "with the rich in his death." unfortunately, the passage in the "prophecy" does not mean what the evangelists have been led to understand, and the ablest hebrew scholars and critics are now agreed that both phrases quoted refer, in true hebrew manner, to one representation, and that the word above { } translated "rich" is not used in a favourable sense, but that the passage must be rendered: "and they made his grave with the wicked and his sepulchre with the evil-doers," or words to that effect.( ) without going minutely into the details of opinion on the subject of the "servant of jehovah" in this writing of the old testament, we may add that upon one point at least the great majority of critics are of one accord: that is. liii. and other passages of "isaiah" describing the sufferings of the "servant of jehovah" have no reference to the messiah.( ) as we have { } touched upon this subject it may not be out of place to add that psalms xxii.( ) and lxix.,( ) which are so frequently quoted in connection with the passion, and represented by new testament and other early writers as messianic, are determined by sounder principles of criticism applied to them in modern times not to refer to the messiah at all. we have elsewhere spoken of other supposed messianic psalms quoted in the new testament.( ) "we now come to a remarkable episode which is peculiar to the first synoptic and strangely ignored by all the other gospels. it is stated that the next day--that is to say, on the sabbath--the chief priests and the pharisees came together to pilate, saying: "sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive: after three { } days i am raised [------]. command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say unto the people: he is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. pilate said unto them: ye have a guard [------]: go, make it as sure as ye can. so they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, with the guard."(l) not only do the other evangelists pass over this strange proceeding in total silence, but their narratives exclude it, at least those of the second and third synoptists do so. the women came with their spices to embalm the body, in total ignorance of there being any guard to interfere with their performance of that last sad office for the master. we are asked to believe that the chief priests and the pharisees actually desecrated the sabbath by sealing the stone, and visited the house of the heathen pilate on so holy a day, for the purpose of asking for the guard.( ) these priests are said to have remembered and understood a prophecy of jesus regarding his resurrection, of which his disciples are represented to be in ignorance.( ) the remark about "the last error," moreover, is very suspicious. the ready acquiescence of pilate is quite incredible.( ) that he should employ roman soldiers to watch the sepulchre of a man who had been crucified cannot be entertained; and his friendly: "go, make it as sure as ye { } can," is not in the spirit of pilate. it is conceivable that to satisfy their clamour he may, without much difficulty, have consented to crucify a jew, more especially as his crime was of a political character represented as in some degree affecting the roman power; but, once crucified, it is not in the slightest degree likely that pilate would care what became of his body, and still less that he would employ roman soldiers to mount guard over it. it may be as well to dispose finally of this episode, so we at once proceed to its conclusion. when the resurrection takes place, it is stated that some of the guard went into the city, and, instead of making their report to pilate, as might have been expected, told the chief priests all that had occurred. a council is held, and the soldiers are largely bribed, and instructed: "say that his disciples came by night and stole him while we slept. and if this come to the governor's ears we will persuade him and make you free from care. so they took the money and did as they were taught."( ) nothing could be more simple than the construction of the story, which follows the usual broad lines of legend. the idea of roman soldiers confessing that they slept whilst on watch, and allowed that to occur which they were there to prevent! and this to oblige the chief priests and elders, at the risk of their lives! then are we to suppose that the chief priests and council believed this story of the earthquake and angel, and yet acted in this way? and if they did not believe it, would not the very story itself have led to the punishment of the men, and to the confirmation of the report they desired to spread, that the disciples had stolen the body? the large bribe seems to have been very ineffectual, however, since the christian historian is able to report precisely what the { } chief priests and elders instruct them to say.( ) is it not palpable that the whole story is legendary?( ) if it be so, and we think it cannot be doubted, a conclusion which the total silence of the other gospels seems to confirm, very suggestive consequences may be deduced from it. the first synoptist, referring to the false report which the sanhedrin instruct the soldiers to make, says: "and this saying was spread among the jews unto this day."( ) the probable origin of the legend, therefore, may have been an objection to the christian affirmation of the resurrection to the above effect; but it is instructive to find that christian tradition was equal to the occasion, and invented a story to refute it. it is the tendency to this very system of defence and confirmation, everywhere apparent, which renders early christian tradition so mythical and untrustworthy. we now enter upon the narrative of the resurrection itself. the first synoptist relates that mary magdalene and the other mary came to behold the sepulchre "at the close of the sabbath, as it began to dawn into the first day of the week" [------],( ) that is to say, shortly after six o'clock on the evening of saturday, the end of the sabbath, the dawn of the next day being marked by the { } glimmer of more than one star in the heavens.( ) the second synoptic represents that, "when the sabbath was past," mary magdalene, and mary the mother of james, and salome bought spices, and that they came to the sepulchre "very early on the first day of the week after the rising of the sun" [------].( ) the third synoptist states that the women who came with jesus from galilee came to the sepulchre, but he subsequently more definitely names them: "mary magdalene, and joanna, and mary the mother of james, and the other women with them,"( )--a larger number of women,--and they came "upon the first day of the week at early dawn" [------]. the fourth evangelist represents that mary magdalene only( ) came to the sepulchre, on the first day of the week, "early, while it was yet dark" [------].( ) the first evangelist indubitably makes the hour at which the women come to the sepulchre different and much earlier than the others, and at the same time he represents them as witnessing the actual removal of the stone, which, in the other three gospels, the women already find rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre.( ) it will, therefore, be interesting to follow the first synoptic. it is here stated: . "and behold there was a great earthquake [------]: for an angel of the lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. . his appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as { } snow. . and for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead men. . and the angel answered and said unto the women: fear ye not, for i know that ye seek jesus, who hath been crucified. . he is not here: for he was raised [------] as he said: come, see the place where he lay. . and go quickly, and tell his disciples that he was raised [------] from the dead, and behold he goeth before you into galilee: there shall ye see him: behold, i have told you. . and they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and ran to tell his disciples."( ) we have here in the first place another earthquake and apparently, on the theory of the course of cosmical phenomena held during the "age of miracles," produced by the angel who descended to roll away the stone from the sepulchre. this earthquake, like the others recorded in the first synoptic, appears to be quite unknown to the other evangelists, and no trace of it has been pointed out in other writings. with the appearance of the angel we obviously arrive upon thoroughly unhistorical ground. can we believe, because this unknown writer tells us so, that "an angel,"( ) causing an earthquake, actually descended and took such a part in this transaction? upon the very commonest compare his description with dan. x. . it is worthy of consideration also that when daniel is cast into the den of lions a stone is rolled upon the mouth of the den, and sealed with the signet of the king and his lords, vi. . { } principles of evidence, the reply must be an emphatic negative. every fact of science, every lesson of experience excludes such an assumption, and we may add that the character of the author, with which we are now better acquainted, as well as the course of the narrative itself, confirms the justice of such a conclusion.( ) if the introduction of the angel be legendary, must not also his words be so? proceeding, however, to examine the narrative as it stands, we must point out a circumstance which may appropriately be mentioned here, and which is well worthy of attention. the women and the guard are present when the stone is rolled away from the sepulchre, but they do not witness the actual resurrection. it is natural to suppose that, when the stone was removed, jesus, who, it is asserted, rises with his body from the dead, would have come forth from the sepulchre: but not so; the angel only says, v. : "he is not here: for he was raised [------];" and he merely invites the women to see the place where he lay. the actual resurrection is spoken of as a thing which had taken place before, and in any case it was not witnessed by any one. in the other gospels, the resurrection has already occurred before any one arrives at the sepulchre; and the remarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there was not, and that it is not even pretended that there was, a single eye-witness of the actual resurrection. the empty grave, coupled with the supposed subsequent appearances of jesus, is the only evidence of the resurrection. we shall not, however, pursue this further at present. the removal of the stone is not followed by any visible result. the inmate of the sepulchre is not { } observed to issue from it, and yet he is not there. may we not ask what was the use, in this narrative, of the removal of the stone at all? as no one apparently came forth, the only purpose seems to have been to permit those from without to enter and see that the sepulchre was empty. another remarkable point is that the angel desires the women to go quickly and inform the disciples: "he goeth before you into galilee: there shall ye see him." one is tempted to inquire why, as he rose from the dead in jerusalem and, in spite of previous statements, the disciples are represented as being there also,( ) jesus did not appear to them in the holy city, instead of sending them some three days' journey off to galilee. at the same time, jesus is represented by the first two synoptics as saying at the last supper, when warning the disciples that they will all be offended at him that night and be scattered: "but after i shall have been raised, i will go before you into galilee."( ) at present we have only to call attention to the fact that the angel gives the order. with how much surprise, therefore, do we not immediately after read that, as the women departed quickly to tell the disciples in obedience to the angel's message, v. : "behold jesus met them, saying, hail. and they came up to him and laid hold of his feet, and worshipped him. . then saith jesus unto them: be not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they depart into galilee, and there they shall see me."( ) what was the use of the angel's message since jesus himself immediately after appears and delivers the very same instructions in person? this sudden and apparently unnecessary appearance has all the character of an afterthought. one point, { } however, is very clear: that the order to go into galilee and the statement that there first jesus is to appear to the disciples are unmistakable, repeated and peremptory. we must now turn to the second gospel. the women going to the sepulchre with spices that they might anoint the body of jesus--which, according to the fourth gospel, had already been fully embalmed and, in any case, had lain in the sepulchre since the friday evening--are represented as saying amongst themselves: "who will roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?"( ) this is a curious dramatic speculation, but very suspicious. these women are apparently not sufficiently acquainted with joseph of arimathaea to be aware that, as the fourth gospel asserts, the body had already been embalmed, and yet they actually contemplate rolling the stone away from the mouth of a sepulchre which was his property.( ) keim has pointed out that it was a general rule( ) that, after a sepulchre had been closed in the way described, it should not again be opened. generally, the stone was not placed against the opening of the sepulchre till the third day, when corruption had already commenced; but here the sepulchre is stated by all the gospels to have been closed on the first day, and the unhesitating intention of the women to remove the stone is not a happy touch on the part of the second synoptist. they find the stone already rolled away.( ) ver. : "and entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were mk. xvi. . the continuation: "for it was very great" [-- ----], is peculiar, but of course intended to represent the difficulty of its removal. { } affrighted. . and he saith unto them: be not affrighted: ye seek jesus of nazareth, the crucified: he was raised [------]; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. . but go, tell his disciples and peter that he goeth before you into galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. . and they went out and fled from the sepulchre: for trembling and astonishment seized them, and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid."( ) in matthew, the angel rolls away the stone from the sepulchre and sits upon it, and the women only enter to see where jesus lay, upon his invitation. here, they go in at once, and see the angel ("a young man") sitting at the right side, and are affrighted. he re assures them and, as in the other narrative, says: "he was raised." he gives them the same message to his disciples and to peter, who is specially named, and the second synoptic thus fully confirms the first in representing galilee as the place where jesus is to be seen by them. it is curious that the women should say nothing to anyone about this wonderful event, and in this the statements of the other gospels are certainly not borne out. there is one remarkable point to be noticed, however, that, according to the second synoptist also, not only is there no eye-witness of the resurrection, but the only evidence of that marvellous occurrence which it contains is the information of the "young man," which is clearly no evidence at all. there is no appearance of jesus to any one narrated, and it would seem as though the appearance described in { } matt, xxviii. f. is excluded. it is well known that mark xvi. - did not form part of the original gospel and is inauthentic. it is unnecessary to argue a point so generally admitted. the verses now appended to the gospel are by a different author and are of no value as evidence. we, therefore, exclude them from consideration. in luke, as in the second synoptic, the women find the stone removed, and here it is distinctly stated that "on entering in they found not the body of the lord jesus. . and it came to pass as they were perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining garments; . and as they were afraid, and bowed their faces to the earth, they said unto them: why seek ye the living among the dead? . he is not here, but was raised [------]; remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in galilee, . saying, that the son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again. . and they remembered his words, . and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.... . and these words appeared to them as an idle tale, and they believed them not."( ) the author of the third gospel is not content with one angel, like the first two synoptists, but introduces "two men in shining garments," who seem suddenly to stand beside the women, and instead of re-assuring them, as in the former narratives, rather adopt a tone of reproof (v. ). they inform the women that "jesus was raised;" and here again not only has no one been an eye-witness of the resurrection, but the women only hear of it from the angels. there is one striking peculiarity in the above { } account. there is no mention whatever of jesus going before his disciples into galilee to be seen of them, nor indeed of his being seen at all; but "galilee" is introduced by way of a reminiscence. instead of the future, the third synoptist substitutes the past and, as might be expected, he gives no hint of any appearances of jesus to the disciples beyond the neighbourhood of jerusalem. when the women tell the disciples what they have seen and heard, they do not believe them. the thief on the cross, according to the writer, was more advanced in his faith and knowledge than the apostles. setting aside mat. xxviii. , , we have hitherto no other affirmation of the resurrection than the statement that the sepulchre was found empty, and the angels announced that jesus was raised from the dead. the account of the fourth evangelist, however, differs completely from the narratives of all the synoptists. according to him, mary magdalene alone comes to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away. she therefore runs and comes to simon peter and to "the other disciple whom jesus loved," saying: "they took [------] the lord out of the sepulchre and we know not [------]( ) where they laid [------] him. . peter, therefore, went forth and the other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. . and the two ran together; and the other disciple outran peter and came first to the sepulchre; . and stooping down, looking in, he seeth the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. c. then cometh simon peter following him and went into the from the use of this plural, as we have already pointed out, it is argued that there were others with mary who are not named. this by no means follows, but if it were the case the peculiarity of the narrative becomes all the more apparent. { } sepulchre and beholdeth the linen clothes lying, . and the napkin that was on his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped in one place by itself. . then went in, therefore, the other disciple also, who came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. . for as yet they knew not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead. . so the disciples went away to their own homes."( ) critics have long ago pointed out the careful way in which the actions of "the beloved disciple" and peter are balanced in this narrative. if the "other disciple" outstrips peter, and first looks into the sepulchre, peter first actually enters; and if peter first sees the careful arrangement of the linen clothes, the other sees and believes. the evident care with which the writer metes out a share to each disciple in this visit to the sepulchre, of which the synoptics seem totally ignorant, is very suggestive of artistic arrangement, and the careful details regarding the folding and position of the linen clothes, which has furnished so much matter for apologetic reasoning, seems to us to savour more of studied composition than natural observation. so very much is passed over in complete silence which is of the very highest importance, that minute details like these, which might well be composed in the study, do not produce so much effect as some critics think they should do. there is some ambiguity as to what the disciple "believed," according to v. , when he went into the sepulchre; and some understand that he simply believed what mary magdalene had told them (v. ), whilst others hold that he believed in the resurrection, which, taken in connection with the following verse, seems undoubtedly to be the author's meaning. if the former were the reading it would be too trifling a point to be so { } prominently mentioned, and it would not accord with the contented return home of the disciples. accepting the latter sense, it is instructive to observe the very small amount of evidence with which "the beloved disciple" is content. he simply finds the sepulchre empty and the linen clothes lying, and although no one even speaks of the resurrection, no one professes to have been an eye-witness of it, and "as yet they know not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead," he is nevertheless said to see and believe. it will have been observed that as yet, although the two disciples have both entered the sepulchre, there has been no mention whatever of angels: they certainly did not see any. in immediate continuation of the narrative, however, we learn that when they have gone home, mary magdalene, who was standing without at the tomb weeping, stooped down and, looking into the sepulchre,--where just before the disciples had seen no one,--she beheld "two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of jesus lay. . they say unto her: woman, why weepest thou? she saith unto them: because they took away [------] my lord, and i know not where they laid him."( ) this again is a very different representation and conversation from that reported in the other gospels. do we acquire any additional assurance as to the reality of the angels and the historical truth of their intervention from this narrative? we think not. mary magdalene repeats to the angels almost the very words she had said to the disciples, v. . are we to suppose that "the beloved disciple," who saw and believed, did not communicate his conviction to the others, and that mary was left { } precisely in the same doubt and perplexity as before, without an idea that anything had happened except that the body had been taken away and she knew not where it had been laid? she appears to have seen and spoken to the angels with singular composure. their sudden appearance does not even seem to have surprised her. we must, however, continue the narrative, and it is well to remark the maintenance, at first, of the tone of affected ignorance, as well as the dramatic construction of the whole scene: v. . "having said this, she turned herself back and beholdeth jesus standing, and knew not that it was jesus. . jesus saith unto her: woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? she, supposing that it was the gardener, saith unto him: sir, if thou didst bear him hence, tell me where thou didst lay him, and i will take him away. . jesus saith unto her: mary. she turned herself, and saith unto him in hebrew:( ) rabboni, which is to say, master. . jesus saith unto her: touch me not [------]; for i have not yet ascended to the father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them: i ascend unto my father and your father, and my god and your god. . mary magdalene cometh announcing to the disciples that she has seen the lord, and he spake these things unto her."( ) to those who attach weight to these narratives and consider them historical, it must appear astonishing that mary, who up to the very last had been closely associated with jesus, does not recognise him when he thus appears to her, but supposes him at first to be the gardener. as part of the evidence of the gospel, however, this is the reading of the vatican and sinaitic codices, besides d and many other important mss. { } such a trait is of much importance, and must hereafter be alluded to. after a couple of days not know jesus whom she had daily seen for so long! the interpretation of the reply of jesus, v. : "touch me not," &c, has long been a bone of contention among critics, but it does not sufficiently affect the inquiry upon which we are engaged to require discussion here.( ) only one point may be mentioned in passing, that if, as has been supposed in connection with mt. xxviii. , jesus be understood to repel, as premature, the worship of mary, that very passage of the first gospel, in which there is certainly no discouragement of worship, refutes the theory. we shall not say more about the construction of this dialogue, but we may point out that, as so many unimportant details are given throughout the narrative, it is somewhat remarkable that the scene terminates so abruptly, and leaves so much untold that it would have been of the utmost consequence for us to know. what became of jesus, for instance? did he vanish suddenly? or did he bid mary farewell, and leave her like one in the flesh? did she not inquire why he did not join the brethren? whither he was going? it is scarcely possible to tell us less than the writer has done; and as it cannot be denied that such minor points as where the linen clothes { } lay, or whether mary "turned herself back" (v. ) or "turned herself" (v. ) merely, cannot be compared in interest and importance to the supposed movements and conduct of jesus under such circumstances, the omission to relate the end of the interview, or more particular details of it, whilst those graphic touches are inserted, is singularly instructive. it is much more important to notice that here again there is no mention of galilee, nor, indeed, of any intention to show himself to the disciples anywhere, but simply the intimation sent to them: "i ascend unto my father and your father," &c, a declaration which seems emphatically to exclude further "appearances," and to limit the vision of the risen jesus to mary magdalene. certainly this message implies in the clearest way that the ascension was then to take place, and the only explanation of the abrupt termination of the scene immediately after this is said is, that, as he spoke, jesus then ascended. the subsequent appearances related in this gospel must, consequently, either be regarded as an after-thought, or as visions of jesus after he had ascended. this demands serious attention. we shall see that after sending this message to his disciples he is represented as appearing to them on the evening of the very same day. according to the third synoptic, the first appearance of jesus to any one after the resurrection was not to the women, and not to mary magdalene, but to two brethren,( ) who were not apostles at all, the name of one of whom, we are told, was cleopas.( ) the story of the walk to emmaus is very dramatic and interesting, but it is clearly legendary.( ) none of the other evangelists { } seem to know anything of it. it is difficult to suppose that jesus should after his resurrection appear first of all to two unknown christians in such a manner, and accompany them in such a journey. the particulars of the story are to the last degree improbable, and in its main features incredible, and it is indeed impossible to consider them carefully without perceiving the transparent inauthenticity of the narrative. the two disciples were going to a village called emmaus threescore furlongs distant from jerusalem, and while they are conversing jesus joins them, "but their eyes were holden that they should not know him." he asks the subject of their discourse, and pretends ignorance, which surprises them. hearing the expression of their perplexity and depression, he says to them: . "o foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spake. . was it not necessary that the christ should suffer these things, and enter into his glory? . and beginning at moses and at all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." when they reach the village, he pretends to be going further (v. ), but they constrain him to stay. . "and it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them he took the bread and blessed and brake, and gave to them; . and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." now why all this mystery? why were their eyes holden that they should not know him? why pretend ignorance? why make "as though he would go further?" considering the nature and number of the alleged appearances of jesus, this episode seems most disproportionate and { } inexplicable. the final incident completes our conviction of the unreality of the whole episode: after the sacramental blessing and breaking of bread, jesus vanishes in a manner which removes the story from the domain of history. on their return to jerusalem, the synoptist adds that they find the eleven, and are informed that "the lord was raised and was seen by simon." of this appearance we are not told anything more. whilst the two disciples from emmaus were relating these things to the eleven, the third synoptist states that jesus himself stood in the midst of them: v. . "but they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they saw a spirit." the apparent intention is to represent a miraculous sudden entry of jesus into the midst of them, just as he had vanished at emmaus; but, in order to re-assure them, jesus is represented as saying: v. . "behold my hands and my feet, that it is i myself; handle me and behold, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me having. . and while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them: have ye here any food? . and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.( ) . and he took it and did eat before them," the care with which the writer demonstrates that jesus rose again with his own body is remarkable, for not only does he show his hands and feet, we may suppose for the purpose of exhibiting the wounds made by the nails by which he was affixed to the cross, but he eats, and thereby proves himself to be still possessed of his human organism. it is apparent, however, that there is direct contradiction between this and the representation of his vanishing at emmaus, { } and standing in the midst of them now. the synoptist who is so lavish in his use of miraculous agency naturally sees no incongruity here. one or other alternative must be adopted:--if jesus possessed his own body after his resurrection and could eat and be handled, he could not vanish; if he vanished, he could not have been thus corporeal. the aid of a miracle has to be invoked in order to reconcile the representations. we need not here criticise the address which he is supposed to make to the disciples,( ) but we must call attention to the one point that jesus (v. ) commands the disciples to tarry in jerusalem until they be "clothed with power from on high." this completes the exclusion of all appearances in galilee, for the narrative proceeds to say, that jesus led them out towards bethany and lifted up his hands and blessed them: v. . "and it came to pass, while blessing them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven;" whilst they returned to jerusalem, where they "were continually in the temple" praising god. we shall return to the ascension presently, but, in the meantime, it is well that we should refer to the accounts of the other two gospels. according to the fourth gospel, on the first day of the week, after sending to his disciples the message regarding his ascension, which we have discussed, when it was evening: xx. . "and the doors having been shut where the disciples were, for fear of the jews, jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them: peace be unto you. . and having said this, he the statement in xxiv. , however, is suggestive as showing how the fulfilment of the prophets and psalms is in the mind of the writer. we have seen how much this idea influenced the account of the passion in the gospels. { } showed unto them both his hands and his side. the disciples, therefore, rejoiced when they saw the lord. . so then he said to them again: peace be unto you: as the father hath sent me, i also send you. . and when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the holy spirit: . whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever ye retain they are retained." this appearance of jesus to the eleven bears so far analogy to that in the third gospel, which we have just examined, that it occurs upon the same day and to the same persons. is it probable that jesus appeared twice upon the same evening to the eleven disciples? the account in the fourth gospel itself confirms the only reasonable reply: that he did not do so; but the narrative in the third synoptic renders the matter certain. that appearance was the first to the eleven (xxiv. f.), and he then conducted them towards bethany, and ascended into heaven (v. f.). how then, we may inquire, could two accounts of the same event differ so fundamentally? it is absolutely certain that both cannot be true. is it possible to suppose that the third synoptist could forget to record the extraordinary powers supposed to have been on this occasion bestowed upon the ten apostles to forgive sins and to retain them? is it conceivable that he would not relate the circumstance that jesus breathed upon them, and endowed them with the holy ghost? indeed, as regards the latter point, he seems to exclude it, v. , and in the acts (ii.) certainly represents the descent of the holy spirit as taking place at pentecost. on the other hand, can we suppose that the fourth evangelist would have ignored the walk to bethany and the solemn parting there? or the injunction to remain in jerusalem? { } not to mention other topics. the two episodes cannot be reconciled. in the fourth gospel, instead of showing his hands and feet, jesus is represented as exhibiting "his hands and his side," and that this is not accidental is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that thomas, who is not present, refuses to believe (v. ) unless he see and put his finger into the print of the nails in his hands and put his hand into his side; and jesus, when he appears again, allows him (v. ) to put his finger into his hands and his hand into his side. in the synoptic, the wound made by that mythical lance is ignored and, in the fourth gospel, the wounds in the feet. the omission of the whole episode of the leg-breaking and lance-thrust by the three synoptics thus gains fresh significance. on the other hand, it may be a question whether, in the opinion of the fourth evangelist, the feet of jesus were nailed to the cross at all, or whether, indeed, they were so in fact. it was at least as common, not to say more, that the hands alone of those who were crucified were nailed to the cross, the legs being simply bound to it by cords. opinion is divided as to whether jesus was so bound or whether the feet were likewise nailed, but the point is not important to our examination and need not be discussed, although it has considerable interest in connection with the theory that death did not actually ensue on the cross, but that, having fainted through weakness, jesus, being taken down after so unusually short a time on the cross, subsequently recovered. there is no final evidence upon the point. none of the explanations offered by apologists remove the contradiction between the statement that jesus bestowed the holy spirit upon this occasion and that of the { } third synoptic and acts. there is, however, a curious point to notice in connection with this: thomas is said to have been absent upon this occasion, and the representation, therefore, is that the holy spirit was only bestowed upon ten of the apostles. was thomas excluded? was he thus punished for his unbelief? are we to suppose that an opportunity to bestow the holy spirit was selected when one of the apostles was not present?(l) we have, however, somewhat anticipated the narrative (xx. if.), which relates that upon the occasion above discussed thomas, one of the twelve, was not present, and hearing from the rest that they have seen the lord, he declares that he will not believe without palpable proof by touching his wounds. the evangelist continues: v. . "and after eight days again his disciples were within, and thomas was with them. jesus cometh, the doors having been shut [------], and stood in the midst and said: peace be unto you. . then saith he to thomas: reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and put it into my side, and be not unbelieving but believing. . thomas answered and said unto him: my lord and my god. . jesus saith unto him: because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." the third synoptic gives evidence that the risen jesus is not incorporeal by stating that he not only permitted himself to be handled, but actually ate food in their presence. the fourth evangelist attains the same result in a more artistic manner through the doubts of thomas, but in allowing him actually to put his finger into the prints of the nails in his hands, and his hand into the { } wound in his side, he asserts that jesus rose with the same body as that which had hung on the cross. he, too, however, whilst doing this, actually endows him with the attribute of incorporeality; for, upon both of the occasions which we are discussing, the statement is markedly made that, when jesus came and stood in the midst, the doors were shut where the disciples were. it can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent a miraculous entry.( ) we are asked, however, to believe that when thomas had convinced himself that it was indeed jesus in the flesh who stood before him, he went to the opposite extreme of belief and said to jesus: [------] "my lord and my god!" in representing that jesus, even before the ascension, was addressed as "god" by one of the twelve, the evangelist commits one of those anachronisms with which we are familiar, in another shape, in the works of great painters, who depict pious bishops of their own time as actors in the scenes of the passion. these touches, however, betray the hand of the artist, and remove the account from the domain of sober history. in the message sent by jesus to his disciples he spoke of ascending "to your god and my god," but the evangelist at the close of his gospel strikes the same note as that upon which he commenced his philosophical prelude. we shall only add one further remark regarding this episode, and it is the repetition of one already made. it is much to be regretted that the writer does not inform us how these interviews of jesus with his disciples terminated. we are told of his entry, but not { } of his mode of departure. did he vanish suddenly? did he depart like other men? then, it would be important to know where jesus abode during the interval of eight days. did he ascend to heaven after each appearance? or did he remain on earth? why did he not consort as before with his disciples? these are not jeering questions, but serious indications of the scantiness of the information given by the evangelists, which is not compensated by some trifling detail of no value occasionally inserted to heighten the reality of a narrative. this is the last appearance of jesus related in the fourth gospel; for the character of ch. xxi. is too doubtful to permit it to rank with the gospel. the appearance of jesus therein related is in fact more palpably legendary than the others. it will be observed that in this gospel, as in the third synoptic, the appearances of jesus are confined to jerusalem and exclude galilee. these two gospels are, therefore, clearly in contradiction with the statement of the first two synoptics.( ) it only remains for us to refer to one more appearance of jesus: that related in the first synoptic, xxviii. ff. in obedience to the command of jesus, the disciples are represented as having gone away into galilee, "unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them." we have not previously heard anything of this specific appointment. the synoptist continues: v. . "and when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. . and jesus came and spake unto them, saying: all authority was given to me [------] in heaven and on earth. . go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit; . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever i commanded you; and lo, i am with { } you all the days, unto the end of the world." this appearance not only is not mentioned in the other gospels, but it excludes the appearances in judaea, of which the writer seems to be altogether ignorant. if he knew of them, he practically denies them. there has been some discussion as to what the doubt mentioned in v. refers, some critics maintaining that "some doubted" as to the propriety of worshipping jesus, whilst others more correctly consider that they doubted as to his identity,( ) but we need not mention the curious apologetic explanations offered.( ) are we to regard the mention of these doubts as an "inestimable proof of the candour of the evangelists"? if so, then we may find fault with the omission to tell us whether, and how, those doubts were set at rest. as the narrative stands, the doubts were not resolved. was it possible to doubt without good reason of the identity of one with whom, until a few days previously, the disciples had been in daily and hourly contact at least for a year, if not longer? doubt in such a case is infinitely more decisive than belief. we can regard the expression, however, in no other light than as a mere rhetorical device in a legendary narrative. the rest of the account ueed have little further discussion here. the extraordinary statement in v. ( ) seems as clearly the expression of later theology as the baptismal formula { } in v. , where the doctrine of the trinity is so definitely expressed. some critics suppose that the eleven were not alone upon this occasion, but that either all the disciples of jesus were present, or at least the brethren l to whom paul refers, cor. xv. g. this mainly rests on the statement that "some doubted," for it is argued that, after the two previous appearances to the disciples in jerusalem mentioned by the other evangelists, it is impossible that the eleven could have felt doubt, and consequently that others must have been present who had not previously been convinced. it is scarcely necessary to point out the utter weakness of such an argument. it is not permissible, however, to patch on to this gospel scraps cut out of the others. it must be clear to every unprejudiced student that the appearances of jesus narrated by the four gospels in galilee and judæa cannot be harmonised,( ) and we have shown that they actually exclude each other.( ) the first synoptist records (v. ) the order for the disciples to go into galilee, and with no further interruption than the { } mention of the return of the discomfited guard from the sepulchre to the chief priest, he (v. ) states that they went into galilee, where they saw jesus in the manner just described. no amount of ingenuity can insert the appearances in jerusalem here without the grossest violation of all common sense. this is the only appearance to the eleven recorded in matthew. we must here again point out the singular omission to relate the manner in which this interview was ended. the episode and the gospel, indeed, are brought to a very artistic close by the expression, "lo, i am with you all the days unto the end of the world," but we must insist that it is a very suggestive fact that it does not occur to these writers to state what became of jesus. no point could have been more full of interest than the manner in which jesus here finally leaves the disciples, and is dismissed from the history. that such an important part of the narrative is omitted is in the highest degree remarkable and significant. had a formal termination to the interview been recounted, it would have been subject to criticism, and by no means necessarily evidence of truth; but it seems to us that the circumstance that it never occurred to these writers to relate the departure of jesus is a very strong indication of the unreality and shadowy nature of the whole tradition. we are thus brought to consider the account of the ascension, which is at least given by one evangelist. in the appendix to the second gospel, as if the later writer felt the omission and desired to complete the narrative, it is vaguely stated: xvi. . "so then after the lord spake unto them he was taken up into heaven and sat on the right hand of god."( ) the { } writer, however, omits to state how he was taken up into heaven; and sitting "at the right hand of god" is an act and position which those who assert the "personality of god" may possibly understand, but which we venture to think betrays that the account is a mere theological figment. the third synoptist, however, as we have incidentally shown, gives an account of the ascension. jesus having, according to the narrative in xxiv. ff., led the disciples out to bethany, lifted up his hands and blessed them: v. . "and it came to pass while blessing them he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven."( ) the whole of the appearances narrated in the third synoptic, therefore, and the ascension are thus said to occur on the same day as the resurrection.( ) in matthew, there is a different representation made, for the time consumed in the journey of the disciples to galilee obviously throws back the ascension to a later date. in mark, there is no appearance at all recorded, but the command to the disciples to go into galilee confirms the first synoptic. in the fourth gospel, jesus revisits the eleven a second time after eight days; and, therefore, the ascension is here { } necessarily later still. in neither of these gospels, however, is there any account of an ascension at all. we may here point out that there is no mention of the ascension in any of the genuine writings of paul, and it would appear that the theory of a bodily ascension, in any shape, did not form part of the oldest christian tradition.( ) the growth of the legend of the ascension is apparent in the circumstance that the author of the third gospel follows a second tradition regarding that event, when composing acts.( ) whether he thought a fuller and more detailed account desirable, or it seemed necessary to prolong the period during which jesus remained on earth after his resurrection and to multiply his appearances, it is impossible to say, but the fact is that he does so. he states in his second work: that to the apostles jesus "presented himself alive after he suffered by many proofs, being seen [------] by them during forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of god." it is scarcely possible to doubt that the period of forty days is suggested by the old testament( ) and the hebrew use of that number, of which indeed we already find examples in the new testament in the forty days temptation of jesus in the wilderness,( ) and his fasting forty days and forty nights.( ) why { } jesus remained on earth this typical period we are not told,( ) but the representation evidently is of much more prolonged and continuous intercourse with his disciples than any statements in the gospels have led us to suppose, or than the declaration of paul renders in the least degree probable. if indeed the account in acts were true, the numbered appearances recited by paul show singular ignorance of the phenomena of the resurrection. we need not discuss the particulars of the last interview with the apostles, (i. if.) although they are singular enough, and are indeed elsewhere referred to, but at once proceed to the final occurrences: v. . "and when he had spoken these things, while they are looking he was lifted up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. . and as they were gazing stedfastly into the heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; . which also said: men of galilee [------], why stand ye looking into the heaven? this jesus, who was taken up from you into the heaven, shall come in like manner as ye saw him going into the heaven. . then returned they into jerusalem," &c. a definite statement is here made of the mode in which jesus finally ascended into heaven, and it presents some of the incongruities which might have beeu expected. the bodily ascension up the sky in a cloud, apart from the miraculous nature of such an occurrence, seems singularly to localise "heaven," and to present views of cosmical and celestial phenomena suitable certainly to the age of the writer, but which are not endorsed by modern science. the testimony of the epistle of barnabas (c. xv.) does not agree with this. { } the sudden appearance of the "two men in white apparel," the usual description of angels, is altogether in the style of the author of acts, but does it increase the credibility of the story? it is curious that the angels open their address to the apostles in the same form as almost every other speaker in this book. one might ask, indeed, why such an angelic interposition should have taken place? for its utility is not apparent, and in the short sentence recorded nothing which is new is embodied. no surprise is expressed at the appearance of the angels, and nothing is said of their disappearance. they are introduced, like the chorus of a greek play, and are left unceremoniously, with an indifference which betrays complete familiarity with supernatural agency. can there be any doubt that the whole episode is legendary?( ) it may not seem inappropriate to mention here that the idea of a bodily ascension does not originate with the author of the third synoptic and acts, nor is it peculiar to christianity. the translation of enoch( ) had long been chronicled in the sacred books; and the ascent of elijah( ) in his whirlwind and chariot of fire before the eyes of elisha was another well-known instance. the vision of daniel (vii. ), of one like the "son of man" coming with the clouds of heaven, might well have suggested the manner of his departure, but another mode has been suggested.( ) the author of acts was, we maintain, well acquainted with the works of josephus.( ) { } we know that the prophet like unto moses was a favourite representation in acts of the christ. now, in the account which josephus gives of the end of moses, he states that, although he wrote in the holy books that he died lest they should say that he went to god, this was not really his end. after reaching the mountain abarim he dismissed the senate; and as he was about to embrace eleazar, the high priest, and joshua, "a cloud suddenly having stood over him he disappeared in a certain valley."( ) this, however, we merely mention in passing. our earlier examination of the evidence for the origin and authorship of the historical books of the new testament very clearly demonstrated that the testimony of these works for miracles and the reality of divine revelation, whatever that testimony might seem to be, could not be considered of any real value. we have now examined the accounts which the four evangelists actually give of the passion, resurrection, and ascension, and there can be no hesitation in stating as the result that, as might have been expected from works of such uncertain character, these narratives must be pronounced mere legends, embodying vague and wholly unattested tradition. as { } evidence for such stupendous miracles, they are absolutely of no value. no reliance can be placed on a single detail of their story. the aim of the writers has obviously been to make their narrative of the various appearances of jesus as convincing as possible,( ) and they have freely inserted any details which seemed to them calculated to give them impressiveness, force, and verisimilitude. a recent apologetic writer has said: "any one who will attentively read side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day of the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for us in general, interblended and scattered notices (see matt, xxviii. ; luke xxiv. ; acts i. ), which, in strict exactness, render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions, to produce from them a _certain_ narrative of the order of events. the lacuna, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences, _the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations_, render all harmonies at the best uncertain."( ) passing over without comment, the strange phrase in this passage which we have italicised, and which seems to claim divine inspiration for the writers, it must be obvious to any one who has carefully read the preceding pages that this is an exceedingly moderate description of the wild statements and irreconcilable contradictions of the different narratives we have examined. but such as it is, with all the glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities of the accounts even thus subdued, is it possible for any one who has formed even a faint idea of the extraordinary nature of the allegations which have to be attested, to { } consider such documents really evidence for the resurrection and bodily ascension? the usual pleas which are advanced in mitigation of judgment against the gospels for these characteristics are of no avail. it may be easy to excuse the writers for their mutual contradictions, but the pleas themselves are an admission of the shortcomings which render their evidence valueless. "the differences of purpose in the narrative of the four evangelists,"( ) may be fancifully set forth, or ingeniously imagined, but no "purpose" can transform discordant and untrustworthy narratives into evidence for miracles. unless the prologue to the third gospel be considered a condemnation of any of the other synoptics which may have existed before it, none of the evangelists makes the smallest reference to any of his brethren or their works. each gospel tacitly professes to be a perfectly independent work, giving the history of jesus, or at { } least of the active part of his life, and of his death and resurrection. the apologetic theory, derived from the fathers, that the evangelists designed to complete and supplement each other, is totally untenable. each work was evidently intended to be complete in itself; but when we consider that much the greater part of the contents of each of the synoptics is common to the three, frequently with almost literal agreement, and generally without sufficient alteration to conceal community of source or use of each other, the poverty of christian tradition becomes painfully evident. we have already pointed out the fundamental difference between the fourth gospel and the synoptics. in no part of the history does greater contradiction and disagreement between the three synoptics themselves and likewise between them and the fourth gospel exist, than in the account of the passion, resurrection and ascension. it is impossible to examine the four narratives carefully without feeling that here tradition, for natural reasons, has been more than usually wavering and insecure. each writer differs essentially from the rest, and the various narratives not only disagree but exclude each other. the third synoptist, in the course of some years, even contradicts himself. the phenomena which are related, in fact, were too subjective and unsubstantial for sober and consistent narrative, and free play was allowed for pious imagination to frame details by the aid of supposed messianic utterances of the prophets and psalmists of israel. such a miracle as the resurrection, startling as it is in our estimation, was common-place enough in the view of these writers. we need not go hack to discuss the story of the widow's son restored to { } life by elijah,( ) nor that of the dead man who revived on touching the bones of elisha.( ) the raising from the dead of the son of the widow of nain( ) did not apparently produce much effect at the time, and only one of the evangelists seems to have thought it worth while to preserve the narrative. the case of jairus' daughter,( ) whatever it was, is regarded as a resurrection of the dead and is related by two of the synoptists; but the raising of lazarus is only recorded by the fourth evangelist. the familiarity of the age with the idea of the resurrection of the dead, however, according to the synoptists, is illustrated by the representation which they give of the effect produced by the fame of jesus upon herod and others. we are told by the first synoptist that herod said unto his servants: "this is john the baptist; he was raised from the dead; and therefore the powers work in him."( ) the second synoptist repeats the same statement, but adds: "but others said that it is elijah; and others said that it is a prophet like one of the prophets."( ) the statement of the third synoptist is somewhat different. he says: "now herod the tetrarch heard all that was occurring: and he was perplexed because it was said by some that john was raised from the dead, and by some that elijah appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets rose up. and herod { } said: john i beheaded, but who is this of whom i hear such things, and he sought to see him."() the three synoptists substantially report the same thing; the close verbal agreement of the first two being an example of the community of matter of which we have just spoken. the variations are instructive as showing the process by which each writer made the original form his own. are we to assume that these things were really said? or must we conclude that the sayings are simply the creation of later tradition? in the latter case, we see how unreal and legendary are the gospels. in the former case, we learn how common was the belief in a bodily resurrection. how could it seem so strange to the apostles that jesus should rise again, when the idea that john the baptist or one of the old prophets had risen from the dead was so readily accepted by herod and others? how could they so totally misunderstand all that the chief priests, according to the first synoptic, so well understood of the teaching of jesus on the subject of his resurrection, since the world had already become so familiar with the idea and the fact? then, the episode of the transfiguration must have occurred to every one, when jesus took with him peter and james and john into a high mountain apart, "and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment became white as the light. and behold, there was seen [------] by them moses and elijah { } talking with him;" and then "a bright cloud overshadowed them" and "a voice came out of the cloud: this is my beloved son," &c. "and when the disciples heard they fell on their face and were sore afraid."( ) the third synoptist even knows the subject of their conversation: "they were speaking of his decease which he was about to fulfil in jerusalem."( ) this is related by all as an objective occurrence.( ) are we to accept it as such? then how is it possible that the disciples could be so obtuse and incredulous as they subsequently showed themselves to be regarding the person of jesus, and his resurrection? how could the announcement of that event by the angels to the women seem to them as an idle tale, which they did not believe?( ) here were moses and elijah before them, and in jesus, we are told, they recognized one greater than moses and elijah. the miracle of the resurrection was here again anticipated and made palpable to them. are we to regard the transfiguration as a subjective vision? then why not equally so the appearances of jesus after his passion? we can regard the transfiguration, however, as nothing more than an allegory without either objective or subjective reality. into this at present we cannot further go. it is sufficient to repeat that our examination has shown the gospels to possess no value as evidence for the resurrection and ascension. chapter iii. the evidence of paul we may now proceed to examine the evidence of paul. "on one occasion," it is affirmed in a passage already quoted, "he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the resurrection rested ( cor. xv. -- )."( ) this account is as follows: cor. xv. . "for i delivered unto you first of all that which i also received, that christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, . and that he was buried, and that he has been raised [------] the third day according to the scriptures, . and that he was seen by cephas, then by the twelve. . after that, he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once [------], of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. . after that, he was seen by james; then by all the apostles. . and last of all he was seen by me also as the one born out of due time."( ) can this be considered a "very circumstantial account"? it may be exceedingly unreasonable, but we must at once acknowledge that we are not satisfied. the testimony { } upon which the belief in the resurrection rests comprised in a dozen lines! for we may so far anticipate as to say that this can scarcely be regarded as a _resume_ of evidence which we can find elsewhere. we shall presently point out a few circumstances which it might be useful to know. the apostle states, in this passage, that the doctrines which he had delivered to the corinthians he had himself "received." he does not pretend to teach them from his own knowledge, and the question naturally arises: from whom did he "receive" them? formerly, divines generally taught that paul received these doctrines by revelation, and up to recent times apologists have continued to hold this view, even when admitting the subsidiary use of tradition.( ) if this claim were seriously made, the statements of the apostle, so far as our inquiry is concerned, would certainly not gain in value, for it is obvious that revelation could not be admitted to prove revelation. it is quite true that paul himself professed to have received his gospel not from men, but from god by direct revelation, and we shall hereafter have to consider this point and the inferences to be drawn from such pretensions. at present, the argument need not be complicated by any such supposition, for certainly paul does not here advance any such claim himself, and apologetic and other critics agree in declaring the source of his statements to be natural historical tradition.( ) the points which he { } delivered and which he had also received are three in number: ( ) that christ died for our sins; ( ) that he was buried; and ( ) that he has been raised the third day. in strictness the [------] might oblige us to include, "and that he appeared to cephas, then to the twelve," after which the construction of the sentence is changed. it is not necessary to press this, however, and it is better for the present to separate the dogmatic statements from those which are more properly evidential. it will be observed that, although the death, burial, and resurrection are here taught as "received," evidence only of one point is offered: that jesus "was seen by" certain persons. we have already pointed out that the gospels do not pretend that any one was an eye-witness of the resurrection itself, and it is important to notice that paul, the earliest and most trustworthy witness produced, entirely passes over the event itself, and relies solely on the fact that jesus was supposed to have been seen by certain persons to prove that he died, was buried, and had actually risen the third day. the only inference which we here wish to draw from this is, that the alleged appearances are thus obviously separated from the death and burial by a distinct gulf. a dead body, it is stated, or one believed to be dead, is laid in a sepulchre: after a certain time, it is alleged that the dead person has been seen alive. supposing the first statement to be correct, the second, being in itself, according to all our experience, utterly incredible, leaves further a serious gap in the continuity of evidence. what occurred in the interval between the burial and the supposed apparition? if it be asserted--as in the gospels it is--that, before the { } apparition, the sepulchre was found empty and the body gone, not only may it be replied that this very circumstance may have assisted in producing a subjective vision, but that, in so far as the disappearance of the body is connected with the appearance of the person apparently alive, the fact has no evidential value. the person supposed to be dead, for instance, may actually not have been so, but have revived; for, although we have no intention ourselves of adopting this explanation of the resurrection, it is, as an alternative, certainly preferable to belief in the miracle. or, in the interval, the body may have been removed from a temporary to a permanent resting place unknown to those who are surprised to find the body gone;--and in the gospels the conflicting accounts of the embalming and hasty burial, as we have seen, would fully permit of such an argument if we relied at all on those narratives. many other means of accounting for the absence of the body might be advanced, any one of which, in the actual default of testimony to the contrary, would be irrefutable. the mere surprise of finding a grave empty which was supposed to contain a body betrays a blank in the knowledge of the persons, which can only be naturally filled up. this gap, at least, would not have existed had the supposed resurrection occurred in the presence of those by whom it is asserted jesus "was seen." as it is, no evidence whatever is offered that jesus really died; no evidence that the sepulchre was even found empty; no evidence that the dead body actually arose and became alive again; but skipping over the intermediate steps, the only evidence produced is the statement that, being supposed to be dead, he is said to have been seen by certain persons.( ) { } there is a peculiarity in the statement to which we must now refer. the words, "according to the scriptures" [------] are twice introduced into the brief recapitulation of the teaching which paul had received and delivered: ( ) "that christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and ( ) "that he has been raised the third day according to the scriptures." it is evident that mere historical tradition has only to do with the fact "that christ died," and that the object: "for our sins," is a dogmatic addition. the scriptures supply the dogma. in the second point, the appeal to scripture is curious, and so far important as indicating that the resurrection on the third day was supposed to be a fulfilment of prophecy; and we have thus an indication, regarding which we must hereafter speak, of the manner in which the belief probably originated. the double reference to the scriptures is peculiarly marked, and we have already more than once had occasion to point out that the narratives of the gospels betray the very strong and constant influence of parts of the old testament supposed to relate to the messiah. it cannot, we think, be doubted by any independent critic, that the details of these narratives were to a large extent traced from those prophecies. it is in the highest degree natural to suppose that the early christians, once accepting the idea of a suffering messiah, should, in the absence of positive or minute knowledge, assume that prophecies which they believed to have reference to him should actually have been fulfilled, and that in fact the occurrences corresponded minutely with the prophecies. too little is known of what really took place, and it is { } probable that christian tradition generally was moulded from foregone conclusions. what were the "scriptures," according to which "christ died for our sins," and "has been raised the third day?" the passages which are generally referred to, and which paul most probably had in view, are well known: as regards the death for our sins,--isaiah liii., ps. xxii. and lxix,; and for the resurrection,--ps. xvi. , and hosea vi. . we have already pointed out that historical criticism has shown that the first four passages just indicated are not messianic prophecies at all,( ) and we may repeat that the idea of a suffering messiah was wholly foreign to the jewish prophets and people. the messiah "crucified," as paul himself bears witness, was "to jews a stumbling block,"( ) and modern criticism has clearly established that the parts of scripture by which the early christians endeavoured to show that such a messiah had been foretold can only be applied by a perversion of the original signification. in the case of the passages supposed to foretell the resurrection, the misapplication is particularly flagrant. we have already discussed the use of ps. xvi. , which in acts( ) is put into the mouth of the apostles peter and paul, and shown that the proof passage rests upon a mistranslation of the original in the septuagint.( ) any reader who will refer to hosea vi. will see that the passage in no way applies to the messiah,( ) although undoubtedly it has influenced the formation of the doctrine { } of the resurrection. the "sign of the prophet jonah," which in mt. xii. is put into the mouth of jesus is another passage used with equal incorrectness, and a glimpse of the manner in which christian tradition took shape, and the gospels were composed, may be obtained by comparing with the passage in the first synoptic the parallel in the third (xi. -- ).( ) we shall have more to say presently regarding the resurrection" on the third day." we may now proceed to examine the so-called "very circumstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the resurrection rested." "and that he was seen by cephas, then by the twelve. after that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. after that he was seen by james, then by all the apostles, and last of all he was seen by me also."( ) there can be no doubt, we think, from the terms in which this statement is made, that paul intended to give the appearances in chronological order.( ) it would likewise be a fair inference that he intended to mention all the appearances of which he was aware. so far, the account may possibly merit the epithet "circumstantial," but in all other respects it is scarcely possible to conceive any statement less circumstantial. as to where the risen jesus was seen by these persons, in what manner, and under what circumstances, and at what time, we are not vouchsafed a single particular. moreover, the apostle was not { } present on any of these occasions, excepting of course his own vision, and consequently merely reports appearances of which he has been informed by others, but he omits to mention the authority upon which he makes these statements, or what steps he took to ascertain their accuracy and reality. for instance, when jesus is said to have been seen by five hundred brethren at once, it would have been of the highest importance for us to know the exact details of the scene, the proportion of inference to fact, the character of the apostle's informant, the extent of the investigation into the various impressions made upon the individuals composing the five hundred, as opposed to the collective affirmation. we confess that we do not attach much value to such appeals to the experience of persons at once. it is difficult to find out what the actual experience of the individuals was, and each individual is so apt to catch the infection of his neighbour, and join in excitement, believing that, though he does not himself see or feel anything, his neighbour does, that probably, when inquiry is pressed home, the aggregate affirmation of a large number may resolve itself into the actual experience of very few. the fact is, however, that in this "very circumstantial account" we have nothing whatever except a mere catalogue by paul of certain appearances which he did not himself see--always excepting his own vision, which we reserve--but merely had "received" from others, without a detail or information of any kind. if we compare these appearances with the instances recorded in the gospels, the result is by no means satisfactory. the first appearance is said to be to cephas. it is argued that paul passes in silence over the appearances to women, both because the testimony of women was { } not received in jewish courts, and because his own opinions regarding the active participation of women in matters connected with the church were of a somewhat exclusive character.( ) the appearance to cephas is generally identified with that mentioned, luke xxiv. .( ) nothing could be more cursory than the manner in which this appearance is related in the synoptic. the disciples from emmaus, returning at once to jerusalem, found the eleven and those who were with them saying: "the lord was raised indeed, and was seen by simon." not another syllable is said regarding an appearance which, according to paul, was the first which had occurred. the other gospels say still less, for they ignore the incident altogether. it is difficult to find room for such an appearance in the gospel narratives. if we take the report of paul to be true, that jesus was first seen by cephas, the silence of three evangelists and their contradictory representations, on the one hand, and the remarkable way in which the third gospel avoids all but the mere indirect reference to the occurrence, on the other, are phenomena which we leave apologists to explain.( ) he is next seen "by the twelve." this vision is identified with that narrated in john xx. flf. and luke xxiv. ff,,( ) to which, as thomas was absent on the first occasion, some critics understand the episode in john xx. c if. to be added. on reference to our discussion of { } these accounts, it will be seen that they have few or no elements of credibility. if the appearance to the twelve mentioned by paul be identified with these episodes, and their details be declared authentic, the second item in paul's list becomes discredited. the appearance to brethren at once is not mentioned in any of the gospels, but critics, and especially apologetic critics, assert with more or less of certainty the identity of the occasion with the scene described in matth. xxviii. ff.( ) we remarked whilst discussing the passage that this is based chiefly on the statement that "some doubted," which would have been inconsistent, it is thought, had jesus already appeared to the eleven.( ) the identity is, however, denied by others. the narrative in the first synoptic would scarcely add force to the report in the epistle. is it possible to suppose, however, that, had there been so large a number of persons collected upon that occasion, the evangelist would not have mentioned the fact? on the other hand, does it not somewhat discredit the statement that jesus was seen by so large a number at once, that no record of such a remarkable occurrence exists elsewhere?( ) how could the tradition of such an event, witnessed by so many, have so completely perished that neither in the gospels nor acts, { } nor in any other writing, is there any reference to it, and our only knowledge of it is this bare statement, without a single detail? there is only one explanation: that the assembly could not have recognized in the phenomenon, whatever it was, the risen jesus,( ) or that subsequently an explanation was given which dispelled some temporary illusion. in any case, we must insist that the total absence of all confirmation of an appearance to persons at once alone renders such an occurrence more than suspicious. the statement that the greater number were still living when paul wrote does not materially affect the question. paul doubtless believed the report that such an appearance had taken place, and that the majority of witnesses still survived, but does it necessarily follow that the report was true? the survivors were certainly not within reach of the corinthians, and could not easily be questioned. the whole of the argument of paul which we are considering, as well as that which follows, was drawn from him by the fact that, in corinth, christians actually denied a resurrection, and it is far from clear that this denial did not extend to denying the resurection of jesus himself.( ) that they did deny this we think certain, from the care with which paul gives what he considers evidence for the fact. another point may be mentioned. where could so many as disciples have been collected at one time? the author of acts states (i. ) the number of the christian community gathered together to elect a successor to judas as "about ." apologists, therefore, either suppose the appearance to to have taken place in jerusalem, when numbers of pilgrims { } from galilee and other parts were in the holy city, or that it occurred in galilee itself, where they suppose believers to have been more numerous.( ) this is the merest conjecture; and there is not even ground for asserting that there were so many as brethren in any one place, by whom jesus could have been seen. the appearance to james is not mentioned in any of our gospels. jerome preserves a legend from the gospel of the hebrews, which states that james, after having drunk the cup of the lord, swore that he would not eat bread until he should see him risen from the dead. when jesus rose, therefore, he appeared to james; and, ordering a table and bread to be brought, blessed and broke the bread, and gave it to james.( ) beyond this legendary story there is no other record of the report given by paul. the occasion on which he was seen by "all the apostles" is indefinite, and cannot be identified with any account in the gospels. it is asserted, however, that, although paul does not state from whom he "received" the report of these appearances of the risen jesus, he must have heard them from the apostles themselves. at any rate, it is added, paul professes that his preaching on the death, burial, and resurrection is the same as that of the other apostles.( ) that the other apostles preached the resurrection of jesus may be a fact, but we have no information as to the precise statements they made. we shall presently discuss the doctrine from this point of view, but here we must confine ourselves to paul. it is undeniable that paul { } neither enters into details nor cites authority for the particular appearances which he mentions. as for the inference that, associating with the apostles, he must have been informed by them of the appearances of jesus, we may say that this by no means follows so clearly as is supposed. paul was singularly independent, and in his writings he directly disclaims all indebtedness to the elder apostles. he claims that his gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but through revelation of jesus christ( ) now paul himself informs us of his action after it pleased god to reveal his son in him that he might preach him among the gentiles. it might, indeed, have been reasonably expected that paul should then have sought out those who could have informed him of all the extraordinary occurrences supposed to have taken place after the death of jesus. paul does nothing of the kind. he is apparently quite satisfied with his own convictions. "immediately," he says, in his wondrously human and characteristic letter to the galatians, "i communicated not with flesh and blood; neither went i away to jerusalem to them who were apostles before me, but i went away to arabia, and returned again unto damascus. then after three years i went up to jerusalem to visit cephas, and abode with him fifteen days; but other of the apostles saw i none, save james the brother of the lord. now the things which i write, behold before god i lie not.... then after fourteen years i went up again to jerusalem,"( )--upon which occasion, we know, his business was not of a nature to allow us to suppose he obtained much information regarding the resurrection. we may ask: is there that thirst for information { } regarding the facts and doctrines of christianity displayed here, which entitles us to suppose that paul eagerly and minutely investigated the evidence for them? we think not. paul made up his own mind in his own way and, having waited three years without asking a question, it is not probable that the questions which he then asked were of any searching nature. the protest that he saw none of the other apostles may prove his independence, but it certainly does not prove his anxiety for information. when paul went up to make the acquaintance of cephas his object clearly was not to be taught by him, but to place himself in communication with the man whom he believed to be the chief of the apostles and, we may assume, largely with a view to establish a friendly feeling, and secure his recognition of his future ministry. we should not, of course, be justified in affirming that the conversation between the two great apostles never turned upon the subject of the resurrection, but we think that it is obvious that paul's visit was not in the least one of investigation. he believed; he believed that certain events had occurred "according to the scriptures;" and the legitimate inference from paul's own statements must be that, in this visit after three years, his purpose was in no way connected with a search for evidential information. the author of acts, it will be remembered, represents him as, before any visit to jerusalem, publicly and boldly preaching in damascus that jesus is the son of god, and "confounding the jews.... proving that this is the christ."( ) this representation, it will be admitted, shows an advanced condition of belief little supporting the idea of subsequent investigation. when all conjectures are exhausted, however, we have the one distinct fact { } remaining, that paul gives no authority for his report that jesus was seen by the various persons mentioned, nor does he furnish any means by which we can judge of the nature and reality of the alleged phenomena. we continue here to speak of the appearances to others, reserving the appearance to himself, as standing upon a different basis, for separate examination. what is the value of this evidence? the fact to be proved is that, after a man had been crucified, dead, and buried, he actually rose from the dead, and appeared alive to many persons. the evidence is that paul, writing some twenty years after the supposed miraculous occurrences, states, without detailed information of any kind, and without pretending to have himself been an eyewitness of the phenomena, that he has been told that jesus was, after his death and burial, seen alive on the occasions mentioned! as to the apostle paul himself, let it be said in the strongest and most emphatic manner possible that we do not suggest the most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical statement he makes. we implicitly accept the historical statements, as distinguished from inferences, which proceed from his pen. it cannot be doubted that paul was told that such appearances had taken place. we do not question the fact that he believed them to have taken place; and we shall hereafter discuss the weight to be attached to this circumstance. does this, however, guarantee the truth of the reports or inferences of those who informed the apostle? does the mere passage of any story or tradition through paul necessarily transmute error into truth--self-deception or hallucination into objective fact? are we--without any information as to what was really stated to paul, as to the personality and character of his { } informants, as to the details of what was believed, to have occurred, as to the means taken or which it might have been possible to take to test the reality of the alleged phenomena, without an opportunity of judging for ourselves on a single point--to believe in the reality of these appearances simply because paul states that he has been informed that they occurred, and himself believes the report? so far as the belief of paul is concerned, we may here remark that his views as to the miraculous charismata in the church do not prepare us to feel any confidence in the sobriety of his judgment in connection with alleged supernatural occurrences. we have no reliance upon his instinctive mistrust of such statements, or his imperative requirement of evidence, but every reason to doubt them. on the other hand, without in any way imputing wilful incorrectness or untruth to the reporters of such phenomena, let it be remembered how important a part inference has to play in the narrative of every incident, and how easy it is to draw erroneous inferences from bare facts.( ) in proportion as persons are ignorant, on the one hand, and have their minds disturbed, on the other, by religious depression or excitement, hope, fear, or any other powerful emotion, they are liable to confound facts and inferences, and both to see and analyse wrongly. in the case of a supposed appearance we may merely in passing refer to the case of mary magdalene in the fourth gospel. she sees a figure standing beside her, and infers that it is the gardener:--presently something else occurs which leads her to infer that she was mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next, that it is jesus. it is a narrative upon which no serious argument can be based, but had she at first turned away, her first inference would have remained, and, according to the narrative, have been erroneous. we might also argue that, if further examination had taken place, her second inference might have proved as erroneous as the first is declared to have been. { } alive of a person believed to be dead, it will scarcely be disputed, there are many disturbing elements, especially when that person has just died by a cruel and shameful death, and is believed to be the messiah. the occurrence which we at any time see is, strictly speaking, merely a series of appearances, and the actual nature of the thing seen is determined in our minds by inferences. how often are these inferences correct? we venture to say that the greater part of the proverbial incorrectness and inaccuracy which prevails arises from the circumstance that inferences are not distinguished from facts, and are constantly erroneous. now in that age, under such circumstances, and with oriental temperaments, it is absolutely certain that there was exceptional liability to error; and the fact that paul repeats the statements of unknown persons, dependent so materially upon inference, cannot possibly warrant us in believing them when they contradict known laws which express the results of universal experience. it is infinitely more probable that these persons were mistaken, than that a dead man returned to life again, and appeared to them. we shall presently consider how much importance is to be attached to the mere belief in the occurrence of such phenomena, but with regard to the appearances referred to by paul, except in so far as they attest the fact that certain persons may have believed that jesus appeared to them, such evidence has not the slightest value, and is indeed almost ludicrously insufficient to establish the reality of so stupendous a miracle as the resurrection. it will have been observed that of the ascension there is not a word--obviously, for paul the resurrection and ascension were one act. having so far discussed paul's report that jesus rose { } from the dead and was seen by others, we turn to his statement that, last of all, he was seen also by himself. in the former cases, we have had to complain of the total absence of detailed information as to the circumstances under which he was supposed to have been seen; but it may be expected that, at least in his own case, we shall have full and minute particulars of so interesting and extraordinary a phenomenon. here again we are disappointed. paul does not give us a single detail. he neither tells us when, where, nor how he saw jesus. it was all the more important that he should have entered into the particulars of this apparition, because there is one peculiarity in his case which requires notice. whereas it may be supposed that in the other instances jesus is represented as being seen immediately after the resurrection and before his ascension, the appearance to paul must be placed years after that occurrence is alleged to have taken place. the question, therefore, arises: was the appearance to paul of the same character as the former? paul evidently considers that it was. he uses the very same word when he says "he was seen [------] by me," that he employs in stating that "he was seen [------] by cephas" and the rest, and he classes all the appearances together in precisely the same way. if, therefore, paul knew anything of the nature of the appearances to the others, and yet considers them to have been of the same nature as his own, an accurate account of his own vision might have enabled us in some degree to estimate that of the others. even without this account, it is something to know that paul believed that there was no difference between the earlier and later appearances. and yet, if we reflect that in the appearances immediately after the resurrection the representation is that jesus possessed the very same body that had { } hung on the cross and been laid in the sepulchre, and that, according to the gospels, he exhibited his wounds, allowed them to be touched, assured the disciples of his corporeality by permitting himself to be handled, and even by eating food in their presence, and that in the case of paul the appearance took place years after jesus is said to have ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of god, the identity of the apparitions becomes a suggestive feature. the testimony of paul must at least override that of the gospels, and whatever may have been the vision of paul, we may fairly assume that the vision of peter and the rest was like it. beyond this inference, however, paul gives us no light with regard to the appearance of jesus to himself. he merely affirms that jesus did appear to him. "have i not seen jesus our lord?" he says in one place.( ) elsewhere he relates: "but when he was pleased, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his son in me, that i might preach him among the gentiles; immediately, i communicated not with flesh and blood.... but i went away into arabia and returned again unto damascus."( ) various opinions have been expressed regarding the rendering of [------]. the great majority of critics agree that the direct and natural sense must be adopted: "to reveal his son in me," that is to say, "within me," "in my spirit."( ) others maintain that [------] must be { } rendered "through me,"( ) giving [------] the sense of [------]; but in that case the following context would be quite unnecessary. hilgenfeld( ) thinks that the meaning is "in his person;" and ruckert( ) and a few others read "to me." the liberties taken by interpreters of the new testament with the preposition [------], too frequently from preconceived dogmatic reasons, are remarkable. the importance of this passage chiefly lies in the question whether the revelation here referred to is the same as the appearance to him of jesus of the corinthian letter. some critics incline to the view that it is so,( ) whilst others consider that paul does not thus speak of his vision, but rather of the doctrine concerning jesus which formed his gospel, and which paul claimed to have received, not from man, but by revelation from god.( ) upon this point we have only a few remarks to make. if it be understood that paul refers to the appearance to him of jesus, it is clear that he represents it in these words as a subjective vision, within his own consciousness. if, on the other hand, he do not refer to the appearance, then the passage loses all distinct reference to that occurrence. we do not intend to lay any further stress upon the expression than this, and it is fair to add that we do not think there is any special reference to the apparition of jesus in the { } passage, but simply an allusion to his conversion to christianity, which the apostle considered a revelation in his mind of the true character and work of the christ which had previously been so completely misunderstood by him. we may as well say at once that we desire to take the argument in its broadest form, without wasting time by showing that paul himself uses language which seems to indicate that he recognised the appearance of jesus to have been merely subjective. the only other passage which we need now mention is the account which paul gives, cor. xii. ff, of his being caught up to the third heaven. a few critics consider that this may be the occasion on which jesus appeared to him, to which he refers in the passage of the former letter which we are considering,( ) but the great majority are opposed to the supposition. in any case there is no evidence that the occasions are identical, and we therefore are not entitled to assume that they are so. it will have been observed that we have hitherto confined our attention wholly to the undoubted writings of paul. were there no other reason than the simple fact that we are examining the evidence of paul himself, and have, therefore, to do with that evidence alone, we should be thoroughly justified in this course. it is difficult to clear the mind of statements regarding paul and his conversion which are made in the acts of the apostles, but it is absolutely essential that we should understand clearly what paul himself tells us and what he does not, for the present totally excluding acts. what then does paul himself tell us of the circumstances under which he saw jesus? { } absolutely nothing. the whole of his evidence for the resurrection consists in the bare statement that he did see jesus. now can the fact that any man merely affirms, without even stating the circumstances, that a person once dead and buried has risen from the dead and been seen by him, be seriously considered satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle? is it possible for any one of sober mind, acquainted with the nature of the proposition, on the one hand, and with the innumerable possibilities of error, on the other, to regard such an affirmation even as evidence of much importance in such a matter? we venture to say that, in such a case, an affirmation of this nature, even made by a man of high character and ability, would possess little weight. if the person making it, although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself the subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he had a constitutional tendency to nervous excitement and ecstatic trance, his evidence would have no weight at all. we shall presently have to speak of this more in detail in connection with paul. such an allegation even supported by the fullest information and most circumstantial statement could not establish the reality of the miracle; without them, it has no claim to belief. what is the value of a person's testimony who simply makes an affirmation of some important matter, unaccompanied by particulars, and the truth of which cannot be subjected to the test of even the slightest cross-examination? it is worth nothing. it would not be received at all in a court of justice. if we knew the whole of the circumstances of the apparition to paul, from which he inferred that he had seen the risen jesus, the natural explanation of the supposed miracle might be { } easy. there were no other witnesses of it. this is clear; for, had there been, paul must have mentioned them as he mentioned the five hundred. we have only the report of a man who states that he had seen.jesus, unconfirmed by any witnesses. under no circumstances could isolated evidence like this be ol much value. facts and inferences are alike uncorroborated, but on the other hand are contradicted by universal experience. when we analyse the evidence, it is reduced to this: paul believed that he had seen jesus. this belief constitutes the whole evidence of paul himself for the resurrection. it is usual to argue that the powerful effect which this belief produced upon paul's life and teaching renders this belief of extraordinary force as evidence. this we are not prepared to admit. if the assertion that jesus appeared to him had not been believed by paul, it would not have secured a moment's attention. that this belief affected his life was the inevitable consequence of such belief. paul eminently combined works with faith in his own life. when he believed jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself with sneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted his followers. when he came to believe jesus to be the messiah, he was not more inactive, but became the irrepressible apostle of the gentiles. he acted upon his convictions in both cases; but his mere persecution of christianity no more proved jesus to be an impostor than his mere preaching of christianity proved jesus to be the messiah. it only proved that he believed so. he was as earnest in the one case as in the other. we repeat, therefore, that the evidence of paul for the resurrection amounts to { } nothing more than the unfeigned belief that jesus had been seen by him. we shall presently further examine the value of this belief as evidence for so astounding a miracle. we must not form exaggerated conceptions of the effect upon paul of the appearance to him of jesus. that his convictions and views of christianity were based upon the reality of the resurrection is undeniable, and that they received powerful confirmation and impulse through his vision of jesus is also not to be doubted, but let us clear our minds of representations derived from other sources and clearly understand what paul himself does and does not say of this vision, and for this purpose we must confine ourselves to the undoubted writings of the apostle. does paul himself ascribe his conversion to christianity to the fact of his having seen jesus? most certainly not. that is a notion derived solely from the statements in acts. the sudden and miraculous conversion of paul is a product of the same pen which produced the story of the sudden conversion of the thief on the cross, an episode equally unknown to other writers. paul neither savs when nor where he saw jesus. the revelation of god's son in him not being an allusion to this vision of jesus, but merely a reference to the light which dawned upon paul's mind as to the character and mission of jesus, there is no ground whatever, from the writings of the apostle himself, to connect the appearance of jesus with the conversion of paul. the statement in the epistle to the galatians simply amounts to this: when it pleased him who elected him from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal to his mind the truth concerning his son, that he might preach { } him among the gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither did he go up to jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but immediately went away to arabia, and after that returned again to damascus. it can scarcely be doubted that paul here refers to his change of views--to his conversion--but as little can it be doubted that he does not ascribe that conversion to the appearance to him of jesus spoken of in the corinthian letter. let any reader who honestly desires to ascertain the exact position of the case ask himself the simple question whether, supposing the acts of the apostles never to have existed, it is possible to deduce from this, or any other statement of paul, that he actually ascribes his conversion to the fact that jesus appeared to him in a supernatural manner. he may possibly in some degree base his apostolic claims upon that appearance, although it may be doubted how far he does even this; if he did so, it would only prove the reality of his belief, but not the reality of the vision; but there is no evidence whatever in the writings of paul that he connected his conversion with the appearance of jesus. all that we can legitimately infer seems to be that, before his adoption of christianity, he had persecuted the church;( ) and further it may be gathered from the passage in the galatian letter, that at the time when this change occurred he. was at damascus. at least he says that from arabia he "returned again to damascus," which seems to imply that he first went from that city to arabia. when we consider the expressions in the two letters, it becomes apparent that paul does not set forth any instantaneous conversion of the { } character related elsewhere. to the galatians he describes his election from his mother's womb and call by the grace of god as antecedent to the revelation of his son in him: "when he who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his son in me, that i might preach him among the gentiles," &c. and if the reading "through me" be adopted, the sense we are pointing out becomes still more apparent. in the corinthian letter again, the expressions should be remarked: v. . "and last of all he was seen by me also, as the one born out of due time. . for i am the least of the apostles, that am not fit to be called an apostle, because i persecuted the church of god: . but by the grace of god i am what i am: and his grace which was (bestowed) upon me was not in vain, but i laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not i, but the grace of god with me. . whether, therefore, it were i or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."( ) peter sees jesus first, paul sees him last; and as the thought uppermost in his mind in writing this epistle was the parties in the corinthian church, and the opposition to himself and denial even of his apostleship, the mention of his having seen jesus immediately leads him to speak of his apostolic claims. "am i not an apostle? have i not seen jesus our lord?" he had just before exclaimed, and proceeded to defend himself against his opponents: here again he reverts to the same }{ subject, with proud humility calling himself, on the one hand, "the least of the apostles," but, on the other, asserting that he had "laboured more than they all." he is led to contrast his past life with his present; the time when he persecuted the church with that in which he built it up. there is, however, no allusion to any miraculous conversion when he says: "by the grace of god i am what i am." he may consider his having seen the lord and become a witness of his resurrection one part of his qualification for the apostolate, but assuredly he does not represent this as the means of his conversion. we shall not pause to discuss at length how far being a witness for the resurrection really was made a necessary qualification for the apostolic office. the passages, luke xxiv. , acts i. , ii. , upon which the theory mainly rests, are not evidence of the fact which can for a moment be accepted. it is obvious that the twelve were apostles from having been chosen disciples of the master from the commencement of his active career, and not from any fortuitous circumstance at its close. if paul says: "am i not an apostle? have i not seen jesus our lord?" he continues: "are ye not my work in the lord? if i am not an apostle unto others, yet i am at least to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the lord. my defence to them that examine me is this."( ) there can be no doubt that the claims of paul to the apostolate were, during his life, constantly denied, and his authority rejected. as we have elsewhere pointed out, there is no evidence that his apostleship was ever recognised by the elder apostles, nor that his claim was ever submitted to them. even in the { } second century, the clementine homilies deny him the honour, and make light of his visions and revelations. all the evidence we possess shows that paul's vision of jesus did not secure for him much consideration in his own time, a circumstance which certainly does not tend to establish its reality. what weight can we, then, attach to the representation in the acts of the apostles of the conversion of paul? our examination of that work has sufficiently shown that none of its statements can be received as historical. where we have been able to compare them with the epistles of paul, they have not been in agreement. nothing could be more obvious than the contradiction between the narrative of paul's conduct after his conversion, according to acts, and the account which paul gives in the galatian letter. we need not repeat the demonstration here. where we possess the means of comparison, we discover the inaccuracy of acts. why should we suppose that which we cannot compare more accurate? so far as our argument is concerned, it matters very little whether we exclude the narrative of the conversion of acts or not. we point out, however, that there is no confirmation whatever in the writings of paul of the representation of his conversion by means of a vision of jesus, which, upon all considerations, may much more reasonably be assigned to a somewhat later period. if we ventured to conjecture, we should say that the author of acts has expanded the scattered sayings of paul into this narrative, making the miraculous conversion by a personal interposition of jesus, which he therefore relates no less than three times, counterbalance the disadvantage of his not having followed jesus in the { } flesh.( ) it is curious that he has introduced the bare statement into the third synoptic, that jesus "was seen by simon" [------],( ) which none of the other evangelists mentions, but which he may have found, without farther particulars, [------], in the epistle whence he derived, perhaps, materials for the other story. in no case can the narrative in acts be received as evidence of the slightest value; but in order not to pass over even such statements in silence, we shall very briefly examine it. the narrative is repeated thrice: in the first instance (ix. ff.) as a historical account of the transaction; next (xxii. if.) introduced into a speech supposed to be delivered by paul to the jews when taken prisoner in consequence of their uproar on finding him in the temple purifying himself with the four men who had a vow,--a position which cannot historically be reconciled with the character and views of paul; and, thirdly, again put into the mouth of the apostle (xxvi. ff.) when he pleads his cause before king agrippa. paul is represented in the headlong career of persecuting the church, and going with letters from the high priest empowering him to bring christian men and women bound unto jerusalem. "and as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh to damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of the heaven, and he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying unto him: saul, saul, why persecutest thou me? and he said, who art thou, lord? and he said, i am jesus whom thou persecutest. but rise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."( ) in the second account, there is so far { } no very wide discrepancy, but there, as in the third, the time is said to be about noon. there is a very considerable difference in the third account, however, more especially in the report of what is said by the voice: xxvi. . "at midday, o king, i saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and those journeying with me; . and when we all fell to the earth, i heard a voice saying unto me in the hebrew tongue: saul, saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against pricks. . and i said: who art thou, lord? and the lord said: i am jesus whom thou persecutest. . but rise and stand upon thy feet; for i was seen by thee for this purpose, to choose thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou sawest, and of the things in which i will appear unto thee; . delivering thee from the people and from the gentiles, unto whom i send thee; . to open their eyes, that they may turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."( ) { } it will be admitted that this address is widely different from that reported in the two earlier accounts. apologists argue that, in this third narrative, paul has simply transferred from ananias to jesus the message delivered to him by the former, according to the second account. let us first see what ananias is there represented as saying. acts xxii. : "and he said: the god of our fathers chose thee, to know his will and to see the righteous one'( ) . for thou shalt be a witness to him unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." ( ) now paul clearly professes in the speech which he is represented as delivering before agrippa to state what the voice said to him: "and he said," "and i said," "and he said," distinctly convey the meaning that the report is to be what actually was said. if the sense of what ananias said to him is embodied in part of the address ascribed to the voice, it is strangely altered and put into the first person; but, beyond this, there is much added which neither appears in the speech of ananias nor anywhere else in any of the narratives. if we further compare the instructions given to ananias in the vision of the first narrative with his words in the second and those ascribed to the voice in the third, we shall see that these again differ very materially. acts ix. . "but the lord said unto him: go; for this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before gentiles and kings, and the sons of israel: . for i will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."( ) it will be remembered that this epithet occurs in acts iii. , vii. , and nowhere else in the new testament. { } what must we think of a writer who deals so freely with his materials, and takes such liberties even with so serious a matter as this heavenly vision and the words of the glorified jesus? in the third account, jesus is represented as saying: "it is hard for thee to kick against pricks."( ) this is a well-known proverbial saying, frequently used by classical greek and latin authors,( ) and not altogether strange to hebrew. it is a singularly anthropomorphic representation to put such a saying into the mouth of the divine apparition, and it assists in betraying the mundane origin of the whole scene. another point deserving consideration is, that paul is not told what he is to do by the voice of jesus, but is desired to go into the city to be there instructed by ananias. this is clearly opposed to paul's own repeated asseverations. "for neither did i receive it from man nor was taught it, but through a revelation of jesus christ,"( ) is his statement. the details of the incident itself, moreover, are differently stated in the various accounts and cannot be reconciled. according to the first account, the companions of paul "stood speechless" (ix. ); in the third, they "all fell to the earth" (xxvi. ). the explanation, that they first fell to the ground and then rose up, fails { } satisfactorily to harmonise the two statements; as does likewise the suggestion that the first expression is simply an idiomatic mole of saying that they were speechless, independent of position. then again, in the first account, it is said that the men stood speechless, "hearing the voice [------] but seeing no one."' in the second we are told: "and they that were with me saw indeed the light; but they heard not the voice [------] of him speaking to me."( ) no two statements could be more contradictory. the attempt to reconcile them by explaining the verb [------] in the one place "to hear" and in the other "to understand" is inadmissible, because wholly arbitrary. it is quite obvious that the word is used in the same sense in both passages, the difference being merely the negative. in the third account, the voice is described as speaking "in the hebrew tongue,"( ) which was probably the native tongue of the companions of paul from jerusalem. if they heard the voice speaking hebrew, they must have understood it the effort to make the vision clearly objective, and, at the same time, to confine it to paul, leads to these complications. the voice is heard, though the speaker is not seen, by the men, in the one story, whilst the light is seen, and the voice not heard, in the other, and yet it speaks in hebrew according to the third, and even makes use of classical proverbs, and uses language wondrously similar to that of the author of acts. we may remark here that paul's gospel was certainly not revealed to him upon this occasion; and, therefore, the expressions in his epistles upon this subject must be referred to other revelations. there is, however, { } another curious point to be observed. paul is not described as having actually seen jesus in the vision. according to the first two accounts, a light shines round about him and he falls to the ground and hears a voice; when he rises he is blind.( ) if in the third account, he sees the light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining round about him and his companions,( ) they equally see it, according to the second account.( ) the blindness, therefore, is miraculous and symbolic, for the men are not blinded by the light.( ) it is singular that paul nowhere refers to this blindness in his letters. it cannot be doubted that the writer's purpose is to symbolise the very change from darkness to light, in the case of paul, which, after old testament prophecies, is referred to in the words ascribed, in the third account,( ) to the voice. paul, thus, only sees the light which surrounds the glorified jesus, but not his own person, and the identification proceeds only from the statement: "i am jesus whom thou persecutest." it is true that the expression is strangely put into the mouth of jesus, in the third account: "for i was seen by thee [------] for this purpose," &c,( ) but the narrative excludes the actual sight of the speaker, and it is scarcely possible to read the words just quoted, and their context, without being struck by their incongruity. we need not indicate the sources of this representation of light shrouding the heavenly vision, so common in the old testament. before proceeding to the rest of the account, we may point out in passing the similarity of the details of this scene to the vision of daniel x. - . { } returning, however, to the first narrative, we are told that, about the same time as this miracle was occurring to paul, a supernatural communication was being made to ananias in damascus: ix. . "and to him said the lord in a vision: ananias. and he said, behold i am here, lord. . and the lord said unto him: rise and go to the street which is called straight, and inquire in the house of judas for one called saul, of tarsus; for, behold he prayeth; . and he saw a man named ananias who came in and put his hand on him that he might receive sight. . but ananias answered, lord, i heard from many concerning this man, how much evil he did to thy saints in jerusalem: . and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. . but the lord said, go, &c. (quoted above). . and ananias went away, and entered into the house; and having put his hands on him said: brother saul, the lord hath sent me, even jesus that appeared unto thee in the way by which thou earnest, that thou mightest receive sight and be filled with the holy spirit. . and immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales; and he received sight, rose up, and was baptized, and having taken food was strengthened." we have already had occasion to point out, in connection with the parallelism kept up in acts between the apostle of the gentiles and the apostle of the circumcision, that a similar double vision is narrated by the author as occurring to peter and cornelius. some further vision is referred to in v. ; for in no form of the narrative of paul's vision on the way to damascus is he represented as seeing a man named ananias coming to him for the purpose described. many questions are { } suggested by the story just quoted. how did ananias know that paul had authority from the chief priests to arrest any one? how could he argue in such a way with the lord? did he not then know that jesus had appeared to paul on the way? how did he get that information? is it not an extraordinary thing that paul never mentions ananias in any of his letters, nor in any way refers to these miracles? we have already referred to the symbolic nature of the blindness, and recovery of sight on receiving the holy spirit and being baptized, and this is rendered still more apparent by the statement: v. . "and he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." we may further point out that in immediate connection with this episode paul is represented, in the second account, as stating that, on going to jerusalem, he has another vision of jesus:xxii. . "and it came to pass that, when i returned to jerusalem and was praying in the temple, i was in a trance, . and saw him saying unto me: make haste, and get thee quickly out of jerusalem; for they will not receive thy witness concerning me. . and i said: lord, they themselves know that i was wont to imprison and beat in every synagogue them that believe on thee. . and when the blood of stephen, thy witness, was shed, i also was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of them that slew him. . and he said unto me: go, for i will send thee far hence unto the gentiles." it seems impossible, considering the utter silence of paul, that the apparition to which he refers can have spoken to him at length as described upon these occasions.( ) we have elsewhere remarked { } that there is not the slightest evidence in his own or other writings connecting stephen with paul, and it may be appropriate to add here that, supposing him to have been present when the martyr exclaimed: "lo, i behold the heavens opened, and the son of man standing on the right hand of god,"( ) it is singular that he does not name him as one of those by whom jesus "was seen." to resume this discussion, however: we have already shown that the statements of the acts regarding paul's conduct after this alleged vision are distinctly in contradiction with the statements of paul. the explanation here given of the cause of paul's leaving jerusalem, moreover, is not in agreement with acts ix. f., and much less with gal. i. ff. the three narratives themselves are full of irreconcilable differences and incongruities, which destroy all reasonable confidence in any substantial basis for the story. it is evident that the three narratives are from the same pen, and betray the composition of the author of acts.( ) they cannot be regarded as true history.( ) the hand of the composer is very apparent in the lavish use of the miraculous, so characteristic of the whole work. { } it is worth while to catalogue the supernatural incidents of this episode. the vision; companions hearing the voice but seeing no man, or not hearing the voice but seeing the light; paul's blindness; vision of ananias; restoration of sight to paul; trance of paul in jerusalem. such a narrative cannot be received in evidence. the whole of the testimony before us, then, simply amounts to this: paul believed that he had seen jesus some years after his death: there is no evidence that he ever saw him during his life.( ) he states that he had "received" that he was seen by various other persons, but he does not give the slightest information as to who told him, or what reasons he had for believing the statements to be correct. and still less does he narrate the particulars of the alleged appearances or even of his own vision. although we have no detailed statements of these extraordinary phenomena, we may assume that, as paul himself believed that he had seen jesus, certain other people of the circle of his disciples likewise believed that they had seen the risen master. the whole of the evidence for the resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part of a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after jesus had died and been buried they had seen him alive. these visions, it is admitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement, and under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and distress. the wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and { } indefinite expectation added their effects to oriental imaginations already excited by indignation at the fate of their master, and sorrow or despair at such a dissipation of their messianic dreams. there was present every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. now must we seriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified belief can be accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle as the resurrection? can the belief of such men, in such an age, establish the reality of a phenomenon which contradicts universal experience? it comes to us in the form of bare belief from the age of miracles, unsupported by facts, uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of investigation, and unprovided with material for examination. what is such belief worth? we have no.hesitation in saying that it is absolutely worth nothing. we might here well bring our inquiry to a close, for we have no further evidence to deal with. the problem, however, is so full of interest that we cannot yet lay it down, and although we must restrain our argument within certain rigid limits, and wholly refrain from entering into regions of mere speculation, we may further discuss the origin and nature of the belief in the resurrection. recognizing the fact that, although its nature and extent are very indefinite, there existed an undoubted belief that, after his death, jesus was seen alive; the argument is advanced that there must have been a real basis for this belief. { } "the existence of a christian society," says an apologetic writer, "is the first and (if rightly viewed) the final proof of the historic truth of the miracle on which it was founded. it may indeed be said that the church was founded upon the belief in the resurrection, and not upon the resurrection itself: and that the testimony must therefore be limited to the attestation of the belief, and cannot reach to the attestation of the fact. but belief expressed in action is for the most part the strongest evidence which we can have of any historic event. unless, therefore, it can be shown that the origin of the apostolic belief in the resurrection, with due regard to the fulness of its characteristic form, and the breadth and rapidity of its propagation can be satisfactorily explained on other grounds, the belief itself is a sufficient proof of the fact."( ) this is obviously paley's argument of the twelve men( ) in a condensed form. belief in action may be the strongest evidence which we can have of any historic event; but when the historic event happens to be an event in religious history, and an astounding miracle like the resurrection, such bare evidence, emanating from such an age, is not very strong evidence, after all. the breadth and rapidity of its propagation absolutely prove nothing but belief in the report of those who believed; although it is very far from evident that people embraced christianity from a rational belief in the resurrection. no one pretends that the gentiles who believed made a preliminary examination of the truth of the resurrection. if breadth { } and rapidity of propagation be taken as sufficient proof of the truth of facts, we might consider buddhism and mahomedanism as satisfactorily attested creeds. there could not be a greater fallacy than the supposition that the origin of a belief must be explained upon other grounds, or that belief itself accepted as a sufficient proof of the fact asserted. the truth or falsehood of any allegation is determined by a balance of evidence, and the critic is no more bound to account for the formation of erroneous belief than he is bound to believe because he may not, after a great lapse of time, be able so clearly to demonstrate the particular manner in which that erroneous belief originated, that any other mode is definitely excluded. the belief that a dead man rose from the dead and appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed of upon abstract grounds. the alleged occurrence is contrary to universal experience; but on the other hand the prevalence of defective observation, mistaken inference, self-deception and credulity, any of which might lead to such belief, are only too well known to it. is it necessary to define which peculiar form of error is present in every false belief, before, with this immense preponderance of evidence against it, we finally reject it? we think not. any explanation consistent with universal experience must be adopted, rather than a belief which is contradictory to it. there are two theories which have been advanced to explain the origin of the apostolic belief in the resurrection, to which we may now briefly refer; but it must be clearly understood that the suggestion of an explanation is quite apart from our examination of the actual evidence for the resurrection. fifty { } explanations might be offered and be considered unsatisfactory without in the least degree altering the fact, that the testimony for the final miracle of christianity is totally insufficient, and that the allegation that it actually occurred cannot be maintained. the first explanation, adopted by some able critics, is that jesus did not really die on the cross, but being taken down alive, and his body being delivered to friends, he subsequently revived. in support of this theory, it is argued that jesus is represented by the gospels as expiring after having been but three to six hours upon the cross, which would have been an un-precedentedly rapid death. it is affirmed that only the hands and not the feet were nailed to the cross. the crurifragium, not usually accompanying crucifixion, is dismissed as unknown to the three synoptists, and only inserted by the fourth evangelist for dogmatic reasons, and of course the lance-thrust disappears with the leg-breaking. thus the apparent death was that profound faintness which might well fall upon such an organization after some hours of physical and mental agony on the cross, following the continued strain and fatigue of the previous night. as soon as he had sufficiently recovered, it is supposed that jesus visited his disciples a few times to re-assure them, but with precaution on account of the jews, and was by them believed to have risen from the dead, as indeed he himself may likewise have supposed, reviving as he had done from the faintness of death.( ) { } seeing, however, that his death had set the crown upon his work, the master withdrew into impenetrable obscurity and was heard of no more. we have given but the baldest outline of this theory; for it would occupy too much space to represent it adequately and show the ingenuity with which it is worked out, and the very considerable support which it receives from statements in the gospels, and from inferences deducible from them. we do not ourselves adopt this explanation, although it must be clearly repeated that, were the only alternative to do so, or to fall back upon the hypothesis of a miracle, we should consider it preferable. a serious objection brought against the theory seems to be, that it is not natural to suppose that, after such intense and protracted fatigue and anxiety followed by the most cruel agony on the cross, agony both of soul and body,( ) ending in unconsciousness only short of death, jesus could within a short period have presented himself to his disciples with such an aspect as could have conveyed to them the impression of { } victory over death by the prince of life. he must still, it is urged, have presented the fresh traces of suffering and weakness little calculated to inspire them with the idea of divine power and glory. this is partly, but not altogether, true. there is no evidence, as we shall presently show, that the appearances of jesus occurred so soon as is generally represented; and, in their astonishment at again seeing the master whom they supposed to be dead, the disciples could not have been in a state minutely to remark the signs of suffering,( ) then probably, with the power of a mind like that of jesus over physical weakness, little apparent. time and imagination would doubtless soon have effaced from their minds any such impressions, and left only the belief that he had risen from the dead to develop and form the christian doctrine. a more powerful objection seems to us the disappearance of jesus. we cannot easily persuade ourselves that such a teacher could have renounced his work and left no subsequent trace of his existence. still, it must be admitted that many explanations might be offered on this head, the most obvious being that death, whether as the result of the terrible crisis through which he had passed, or from some other cause, may soon after have ensued. we repeat, however, that we neither advance this explanation nor think it worth while to discuss it seriously, not because we think it untenable, although we do not adopt it, but because we consider that there is another explanation of the origin of belief in the resurrection which the repeated statement in the gospels that the women and his disciples did not at first recognize the risen jesus, are quoted in connection with this point. { } is better, and which is in our opinion the true one. we mean that which is usually called the "vision-hypothesis." the phenomenon which has to be accounted for is the apostolic belief that, after he had been dead and buried, jesus "was seen" [------] by certain persons. the explanation which we offer, and which has long been adopted in various forms by able critics, is, that doubtless jesus was seen, but the vision was not real ^and objective, but illusory and subjective; that is to say: jesus was not himself seen, but only a representation of jesus within the minds of the beholders. this explanation not only does not impeach the veracity of those who affirmed that they had seen jesus, but, accepting to a certain extent a subjective truth as the basis of the belief, explains upon well-known and natural principles the erroneous inference deduced from the subjective vision. it seems to us that the points to be determined are simple and obvious: is it possible for a man to mistake subjective impressions for objective occurrences? is it possible that any considerable number of persons can at the same time receive similar subjective impressions and mistake them for objective facts? if these questions can be answered affirmatively, { } and it can be shown that the circumstances, the characters, the constitution of those who believed in the first instance, favoured the reception of such subjective impressions, and the deduction of erroneous inferences, it must be admitted that a satisfactory explanation can thus be given of the apostolic belief, on other grounds than the reality of a miracle opposed to universal experience. no sooner is the first question formulated than it becomes obvious to every one who is acquainted with psychological and physiological researches, or who has even the most elementary knowledge of the influence of the mind upon the body, that it must at once be answered in the affirmative. indeed the affirmation that subjective impressions, in connection with every sense, can be mistaken for, and believed to be, actual objective effects, is so trite that it seems almost superfluous to make it. every reader must be well acquainted with illustrations of the fact. the only difficulty is to deal authoritatively with such a point within moderate compass. we must limit ourselves to the sense of sight "there are abundant proofs," says sir benjamin brodie, "that impressions may be made in the brain by other causes simulating those which are made on it by external objects through the medium of the organs of sense, thus producing false perceptions, which may, in the first instance, and before we have had time to reflect on the subject, be mistaken for realities."( ) the limitation here introduced: "before we have had time to reflect on the subject," is of course valid in the case of those whose reason is capable of rejecting the false perceptions, whether on the ground of natural { } law or of probability; but, in anyone ignorant of natural law, familiar with the idea of supernatural agency and the occurrence of miraculous events, it is obvious, reflection, if reflection of a sceptical kind can even be assumed, would have little chance of arriving at any true discrimination of phenomena. speaking of the nervous system and its functions, and more immediately of the relation of the cerebrum to the sensorium and the production of spectral illusions, dr. carpenter says, in his work on the "principles of mental physiology," which is well worth the study of those interested in the question we are discussing: "still stronger evidence of the same associated action of the cerebrum and sensorium, is furnished by the study of the phenomena designated as spectral illusions. these are clearly sensorial states not excited by external objects; and it is also clear that they frequently originate in cerebral changes, since they represent creations of the mind, and are not mere reproductions of past sensations." dr. carpenter refers in illustration to a curious illusion to which sir john herschel was subject, "in the shape of the involuntary occurrence of visual impressions, into which geometrical regularity of form enters as the leading character. these were not of the nature of those ocular spectra which may be attributed with probability to retinal changes."( ) dr. carpenter then continues: "we have here not a reproduction of sensorial impressions formerly received; but a construction of new forms, by a process which, if it had been carried on consciously, we should have called imagination. and it is difficult to see { } how it is to be accounted for in any other way, than by an unconscious action of the cerebrum; the products of which impress themselves on the sensorial consciousness, just as, in other cases, they express themselves through the motor apparatus."( ) the illusions described by sir john herschel who, as he himself says, was "as little visionary as most people" should be referred to. of the production of sensations by ideas there can be no possible doubt( ) and, consequently, as little of the realisation by the person in whom they are produced of subjective impressions exactly as though they were objective. with regard to false perceptions, dr. carpenter says: "it has been shown that the action of ideational states upon the sensorium can modify or even produce sensations. but the action of pre-existing states of mind is still more frequently shown in modifying the interpretation which we put upon our sense-impressions. for since almost every such interpretation is an act of judgment based upon experience, that judgment will vary according to our mental condition at the time it is delivered; and will be greatly affected by any dominant idea or feeling, so as even to occasion a complete mis-interpretation of the objective source of the sense-impression, as often occurs in what is termed 'absence of mind.' the following case, mentioned by dr. tuke( ) as occurring within his own knowledge, affords a good example of this fallacy:--'a lady was walking one day from penryn to falmouth, and her mind being at that time, or recently, occupied by the subject of drinking-fountains, thought she saw { } in the road a newly-erected fountain, and even distinguished an inscription upon it, namely--"_if any man thirst let him come unto me and drink_." some time afterwards, she mentioned the fact with pleasure to the daughters of a gentleman who was supposed to have erected it. they expressed their surprise at her statement, and assured her that she must be quite mistaken. perplexed with the contradiction between the testimony of her senses and of those who would have been aware of the fact had it been true, and feeling that she could not have been deceived (" for seeing is believing "), she repaired to the spot, and found to her astonishment that no drinking-fountain was in existence--only a few scattered stones, which had formed the foundation upon which the suggestion of an expectant imagination had built the superstructure. the subject having previously occupied her attention, these sufficed to form, not only a definite erection, but one inscribed by an appropriate motto corresponding to the leading idea.'"( ) we may give as another illustration an illusion which presented itself to sir walter scott( ) he had been reading, shortly after the death of lord byron, an account in a publication professing to detail the habits and opinions of the poet. as scott had been intimate with lord byron he was deeply interested in the publication, which contained some particulars relative to himself and other friends. "their sitting-room opened into an entrance hall, rather fantastically fitted up with articles of armour, skins of wild animals, and the like. it was when laying down his book, { } and passing into this hall, through which the moon was beginning to shine, that the individual of whom i speak saw, right before him, and in a standing posture, the exact representation of his departed friend whose recollection had been so strongly brought to his imagination. he stopped for a single moment, so as to notice the wonderful accuracy with which fancy had impressed upon the bodily eye the peculiarities of dress and posture of the illustrious poet. sensible, however, of the delusion, he felt no sentiment save that of wonder at the extraordinary accuracy of the resemblance, and stepped onward towards the figure, which resolved itself, as he approached, into the various materials of which it was composed. these were merely a screen, occupied by great-coats, shawls, plaids and such other articles as usually are found in a country entrance-hall. the spectator returned to the spot from which he had seen the illusion, and endeavoured, with all his power, to recall the image which had been so singularly vivid. but this was beyond his capacity," &c. although sir walter scott might be sensible of the delusion, it may be more than doubted whether, in the first century of our era, such an apparition proceeding from or connected with religious agitation of mind would have been considered so. dr. abercrombie( ) mentions many instances of spectral illusions, "some of the most authentic facts" relating to which he classes under the head of "intense mental conceptions so strongly impressed upon the mind as, for the moment, to be believed to have a real existence." { } we cannot, however, venture to quote illustrations.( ) dr. hibbert, in whose work on apparitions many interesting instances are to be found, thus concludes his consideration of the conditions which lead to such illusions: "i have at length concluded my observations on what may be considered as the leading mental laws which are connected with the origin of spectral impressions. the general inference to be drawn from them is,--that _apparitions are nothing more than morbid symptoms, which are indicative of an intense excitement of the renovated feelings of the mind_."( ) subjective visions, believed to have had objective reality, abound in the history of the world. they are familiar to all who have read the lives of the saints, and they have accompanied the progress of christianity in various forms from the trances of montanism to the vision of the "immaculate conception" in the grotto of lourdes. if we turn to the inquiry whether a similar subjective impression can be received by many persons at one time and be mistaken by them for an objective reality, an equally certain reply in the affirmative must unhesitatingly be given. the contagiousness of emotion is well known,( ) and the rapidity with which panic, for instance, spreads from a single individual to the mass is remarked every day. the most trifling incident, unseen by more than a few and, therefore, more pliant in the imagination every one remembers the case of luther and his visions of the devil. { } of the many, has instantaneously convinced multitudes of the most erroneous inferences. we need not refer, moreover, to the numerous religious and other mental epidemics which have swept over the face of the world, infecting society with the wildest delusions. from montanism to camp meetings and revivals in our own day, it has been demonstrated that religious excitement and dominant ideas have spread with astonishing rapidity and power amongst the circles in which they have arisen. in certain states of nervous expectation, false impressions are instantaneously transmitted from one to another in a religious assembly. dr. carpenter says: "moreover, if not only a single individual, but several persons should be 'possessed' by one and the same idea or feeling, the same misinterpretation may be made by all of them; and in such a case the concurrence of their testimony does not add the least strength to it.--of this we have a good example in the following occurrence cited by dr. tuke, as showing the influence of a 'dominant idea' in falsifying the perceptions of a number of persons at once:--'during the conflagration at the crystal palace in the winter of - , when the animals were destroyed by the fire, it was supposed that the chimpanzee had succeeded in escaping from his cage. attracted to the roof, with this expectation in full force, men saw the unhappy animal holding on to it, and writhing in agony to get astride one of the iron ribs. it need not be said that its struggles were watched by those below with breathless suspense, and as the newspapers informed us 'with sickening dread.' but there was no animal whatever there; and all this feeling was thrown away upon a tattered piece of blind, so torn as to resemble to the eye of fancy, the body, arms, and legs of an ape!' (op. cit., p. .) another { } example of a like influence affecting several individuals simultaneously in a similar manner is mentioned by dr. hibbert in his well-known treatise on apparitions:--'a whole ship's company was thrown into the utmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a few days before. he was distinctly seen walking a-head of the ship, with a peculiar gait by which he was distinguished when alive, through having one of his legs shorter than the other. on steering the ship towards the object, it was found to be a piece of floating wreck.' many similar cases might be referred to, in which the imagination has worked up into 'apparitions' some common-place objects, which it has invested with attributes derived from the previous mental state of the observer; and the belief in such an apparition as a reality, which usually exists in such cases, unless antagonized by an effort of the reason, constitutes a _delusion_."( ) we must maintain indeed that a number of persons assembled under the influence of strong similar ideas, and excited by the same active religious emotion are more likely to be affected by similar subjective impressions to the extent of believing them to be objective than one or two would be. the excitement of each acts upon the whole body, and is itself increased by reaction from the aggregate emotion. each receives impressions from the other, which are vividly felt even without being verified by personal experience. the most nervous temperament in the assembly gives the final impetus to the excited imagination of the rest. in moments of supreme expectation and doubt, enthusiasm overcomes reason. if one man see, if one man hear, the mental impression is credited with an objective cause, even when unfelt by others, and then a { } similar impression is soon carried from the brain to the sensorium of all. this does not involve the supposition of a diseased mind in ordinary cases, and in the instances which we have in view the false perceptions were, obviously, determined and encouraged by foregone conclusions of a nature rarely possible and, when existing, rarely resisted. "there are many persons," adds dr. carpenter, "quite sane upon ordinary matters, and even (it may be) distinguished by some special form of ability, who are yet affected with what the writer once heard mr. carlyle term a 'diluted insanity;' allowing their minds to become so completely 'possessed' by 'dominant ideas,' that their testimony as to what they declare themselves to have witnessed--even when several individuals concur in giving exactly the same account of it--must be regarded as utterly untrustworthy."( ) that subjective impressions can, in the opinion of eminent apologists, be recorded by an evangelist as objective reality, we have already pointed out in connection with the statement of the first synoptist, that "many bodies of the saints were raised; and they came out of the sepulchres after his resurrection and appeared unto many." (xxvii. f.) dean milman and canon farrar explain this by the supposition that the earthquake "seemed to have filled the air with ghostly visitants, who after christ had risen appeared to linger in the holy city."( ) it follows as a logical consequence that, as this subjective impression felt by many at once is described in the gospel as objective, these writers not only admit the possibility of such a mistake on the part { } of the observers, but that the gospel, in adopting that mistake, may be suspected of a similar course in recording the appearances of jesus. we have thus replied to the question whether the "vision hypothesis" could explain the belief of five hundred, or even of eleven persons who supposed they had seen jesus at once, and we do not think that any one who seriously considers the age, and the circumstances under which the phenomenon is alleged to have occurred, can doubt that such belief could very easily have resulted from merely subjective impressions. before going further into the discussion of the matter, however, we must again, with a little more minuteness, call attention to the date of the actual statements upon which the whole argument turns. the apostle paul writes about a quarter of a century after the time when it is said that jesus "was seen" by those whom he names. whatever opinion may be formed as to the amount of information obtained by paul during the visit he paid to jerusalem for the purpose of making the acquaintance of peter, it is undeniable that some years had elapsed between the time when jesus is supposed to have been seen and the time when paul could have received information regarding these appearances from any of the apostles. if we date the death of jesus in the year , almost the latest date assigned to it by any eminent critic, and the conversion of paul about a.d. - ,( ) it will be remembered that the { } apostle himself states that he did not go to jerusalem till three years after, which brings us to a.d. - as the earliest time when paul first came in personal contact with peter and james. he did not go up to jerusalem again for fourteen years after that, and we have no reason for believing that he met any of the apostles in the interval, but the contrary, from his own account of that second visit, gal. ii. . he could not, therefore, have heard anything of the appearances of jesus even from peter and james till some eight to ten years after they had taken place. from the other apostles, in all probability, he cannot have heard anything till nearly twenty years had elapsed since they supposed they, had seen jesus. where did he get his information regarding the brethren at once? from whom did he get it? if the supposed appearance took place, as so many suppose, in galilee, the date of his information is still more uncertain. if, on the other hand, it occurred in jerusalem, whilst so many of the numbers were visitors only, it is obvious that the greater part must subsequently have left the holy city and become scattered to their respective homes. the difficulty of obtaining information from more than a few of the becomes obvious. in any case, from no authority which we are entitled to assume could paul have been minutely informed of these appearances less than eight to ten years after they occurred, and then of the vision of the eleven, only from one of the number to whom the first vision occurred. now, no one who considers the operation of memory, even in persons of more than usual sobriety of imagination, dealing with circumstances not likely to be exaggerated or distorted by feeling in the course of time, can doubt that, in ten years, { } all the circumstances of such occasions, amidst which much excitement certainly prevailed, must have assumed a very different aspect from what they originally bore. we may be permitted to quote a few words on this subject: "though we are accustomed to speak of memory as if it consisted in an exact reproduction of past states of consciousness, yet experience is continually showing us that this reproduction is very often inexact, through the modification which the 'trace' has undergone in the interval. sometimes the trace has been partially obliterated; and what remains may serve to give a very erroneous (because imperfect) view of the occurrence..... and where it is one in which our own feelings are interested, we are extremely apt to lose sight of what goes against them, so that the representation given by memory is altogether one-sided. this is continually demonstrated by the entire dissimilarity of the accounts of the same occurrence or conversation, which shall be given by two or more parties concerned in it, even when the matter is fresh in their minds, and they are honestly desirous of telling the truth. and this diversity will usually become still more pronounced with the lapse of time: the trace becoming gradually but unconsciously modified by the habitual course of thought and feeling; so that when it is so acted on after a lengthened interval as to bring up a reminiscence of the original occurrence, that reminiscence really represents, not the actual occurrence, but the modified trace of it."( ) this is specially likely to occur where, as in our case, there were old testament prophecies supposed to describe minutely the sufferings, death, and resurrection of the messiah, to furnish lines which the transformation of memory must { } insensibly follow. unconsciously, we may be certain, the misty outlines of the original transaction would acquire consistency and take form according to the tenor of so infallible an index. it would require a memory of iron and of more than stubborn doggedness to resist the unobtrusive influence of supposed prophecies. be it clearly understood that we speak of an unconscious process, which is perfectly consistent with complete belief that the transformed trace exactly represents what originally took place. but adhering more closely to the point before us, can we suppose that the account which paul received of these appearances, after that lapse of time, was a perfectly sober and unwarped description of what actually took place? we think not. is it possible that the vision of the , for instance, had escaped the maturing influence of time? or that of the eleven? we believe that it is not possible. however, paul does not give a single detail, and consequently this argument mainly affects the abstract value of all such evidence whether at first or second hand, but it likewise makes more vague the original transaction, so indefinitely sketched for us, which we have to explain. what was it the really saw? "jesus," says the report matured by time; and modern divines taking the statement in its most objective sense, demand an explanation of the unknown phenomenon which led to believe that they actually saw the risen. master. did the originally think anything of the kind? what impression did the individuals receive? did any two receive precisely the same impressions? there is not the slightest evidence that they did. although paul gives the most meagre report of these appearances that could well be conceived, it must be remembered that the { } impression made upon his own mind was not by the events themselves, but by the narrative of the events recounted at least eight or ten years afterwards. there can be po doubt that, earlier, paul the persecutor must also frequently have heard of the resurrection, and of alleged occasions when jesus had been seen after his death and burial, from persecuted members of the christian community, but beyond the undefined certainty of this we are not entitled to go. that what he heard must have received warmth of colouring from the fire of persecution is most probable. of this, however, we shall speak presently. it is not necessary further to enlarge upon the superstition of the age of which we write. we have elsewhere quoted the opinion of an orthodox divine and hebrew scholar on the character of the jewish people about that period. "not to be more tedious, therefore, in this matter," he says, "let two things only be observed: i. that the nation under the second temple, was given to magical arts beyond measure; and ii. that it was given to an easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure."( ) and again: "it is a disputable case whether the jewish nation were more mad with superstition in matters of religion, or with superstition in curious arts."( ) even supposing the twelve to have been men of superior intelligence to most of their fellow countrymen of the period, it cannot reasonably be questioned that they were "men of like passions" and failings with the rest, and that, as were the most eminent men of all countries for centuries after, they were ignorant of the true order of nature, full of superstitious ideas regarding cosmical phenomena, and ready at all times to { } believe in miracles and supernatural interference with the affairs of life. as jews, moreover, they had inherited belief in angelic agency, and divine apparitions. the old testament is full of narratives in which jehovah appears to the patriarchs and lawgivers of israel. celestial visions had been familiar to every jew from his infancy, and the constant personal communications of the almighty with his peculiar people were still the most sacred traditions of the nation. nursed in the prevalent superstition of the time, educated by the law and the prophets to familiarity with the supernatural, and prepared by the fervid imagination of their race to recognize wonders in heaven and earth,( ) the disciples were naturally prepared for the great christian miracle. the special circumstances in which they were placed at the death of jesus conduced in the highest degree to excite that expectant attention which, in their state of profound agitation, rendered them readily susceptible of extraordinary impressions. the disciples had for a long period followed jesus and felt the influence of his elevated character. it may be doubted how far they had entered into the spirit of his sublime teaching, or understood the spiritual wisdom which lay beneath the noble simplicity of his language, but it cannot be doubted that his personal greatness must have produced a profound effect upon their minds. when they came at last to understand, if in a material and imperfect way, his views as to his messianic character, they can have had little difficulty in believing, in spite of the mysterious lowliness and humility of his aspect, although probably in a sense widely different from his own, that { } the hope of israel had at last come, and that the hour of her redemption was at hand. it is probable that, as the enmity of the priests and rulers increased, and the danger of his position became more apparent, whilst he disdained unworthily to shrink from his public work, he must have felt all the peril before him, and observed the anxiety of his followers. it may be conceived that, under such circumstances, his teachings may have assumed even a higher spirituality than before and, rising above the clouds of the present, soared out into that calmer future when the religion he founded would be accepted by men, and become a light to the gentiles and the glory of his people israel. it is probable that he may have spoken of his death in spiritual terms as a sacrifice for them and for the world, which would secure the triumph of his work and regenerate mankind. comforting those who had left all and followed him, but from whom he might so soon be parted, and knowing their doubts and fears, he must have re-assured their minds by inspiriting views of the inseparable nature of his union with those who loved him and did his commandments; his spirit dwelling within them and leading them safely through the world, in the peace and security of souls raised by the truth beyond the reach of its corruption and its wrong. that they must have felt the strongest conviction of his messianic character, we think cannot be doubted, however confused may have been their ideas of the exact nature of his office and of the manner in which his coming was to secure the triumph of israel the shock to their expectations and the utter dissipation of their hopes which must have been felt in the first moment of his arrest, hurried trial, and cruel { } condemnation can well be imagined. it is probable that in that first moment of terror and bewilderment the disciples indeed all forsook him and fled. no one who had consorted with the great teacher, however, and felt the influence of his mind, could long have resisted the reaction to nobler thoughts of him. in all the bitterness of sorrow for the loss of their master and friend, in horror at his agonizing and shameful death, and in doubt, consternation, and almost despair, they must have gathered together again and spoken of these strange events. believing jesus to have been the messiah, how could they interpret his death on the cross? if he was the messiah could he thus die?( ) if enoch and elijah, if moses, precursors of the messiah, had not seen death, how could that prophet like unto moses whom jehovah had raised up end his career by a shameful death on the cross? throughout that time of fiery trial and supreme mental agitation, they must have perpetually sought in their own minds some explanation of the terrible events then occurring and seeming to blast all their hopes, and doubtless mystic utterances of jesus must have assumed new meanings, meanings probably different from his own. in the accounts of the coming messiah in the prophets, they must have searched for some light by which to solve the inexplicable problem. is it not conceivable that, in that last time of danger and darkness, when he saw the persecution against him become more vehement, and felt that the path which he had chosen led him through danger and distress perhaps to death, jesus may, in the bitter contemplation of that fanatical opposition of bigotry and { } superstition have applied to himself the description of the suffering servant of jehovah, suffering--as all noble souls have done who are in advance of their age, and preach great truths which condemn either directly or by implication the vices and follies of their time,--"the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely," and, worse still, the ignoble insults of popular ignorance and fickleness? here might seem to them the solution of the enigma; and returning from that first flight of terror and bewilderment, feeling all the intense reaction of affection and grief and faith in the master quickened by shame at their abandonment of him in his moment of supreme danger and affliction, still believing that he must be the messiah, and in mute longing and expectation of the next events which were to confirm or confound their hopes, the disciples must have been in the climax of nervous agitation and excitement, and ready to receive any impression which might be suggested in their embarrassment.( ) according to paul it was peter who first saw the risen jesus. according to the first and fourth gospels, the first appearance was to the women, and notably, in the latter, to mary magdalene out of whom had been cast "seven devils," and whose temperament probably rendered her unusually susceptible of all such impressions. did paul intentionally omit all mention of the appearances to the women, or did he not know of them? in the latter case, we have an instructive light thrown on the gospel tradition; in the former, the first suggestion ewald points out that, according to the belief of the period, the souls of the dead hovered for a time between heaven and earth, and he considers that the belief undeniably played an important part in this sphere of visions of the christ gesch. d. v. isr., vi. p. a. { } of the resurrection becomes even more clearly intelligible. it will be observed that in all this explanation we are left chiefly to conjecture, for the statements in the gospels cannot, upon any point, be used with the slightest confidence. on the other hand, all that is demanded is that a probable or possible explanation of the origin of the belief in the resurrection should be given; and in the total absence of historical data we are entitled to draw inferences as to the course of events at the time. it may well be that a mistake as to the sepulchre, rendered not improbable if any hint of the truth be conveyed in the conflicting traditions of the gospel, or one of many other suggestions which might be advanced, might lead the women or peter to believe that the sepulchre was empty. or some other even trifling circumstance, which we no longer can indicate with precision, might convey to the women or to peter, in their state of nervous excitement, the last impulse wanting to cause that rapid revulsion from extreme depression, which is so suitable to the state which we may perhaps be allowed to call creative subjectivity. if we are to accept the indications scattered about the new testament, the impetuous ardent temperament of peter was eminently one to bound into sudden ecstatic enthusiasm, and in all probability some commonplace or trifling incident may have been the spark which kindled into flame the materials already at glowing heat. the strong subjective impression that jesus had risen would create a vision of him which, at once confirming previous conclusions, resolving perplexing doubts and satisfying feverish expectations, would be accepted by each mind with little or no question as an objective reality. if peter, or even the { } women, brought to the disciples the assurance that they had seen the lord, we cannot doubt that, in the unparalleled position in which they were then placed, under all the circumstances of intense feeling and religious excitement at the moment, such emotions would be suddenly called into action as would give to these men the impression that they had seen the master whom they had lost. these subjective impressions would be strengthened daily and unconsciously into ever more objective consistency, and being confirmed by supposed prophecy would be affirmed with a confidence insensibly inspired by dogmatic considerations. that the news would fly from believer to believer, meeting everywhere excited attention and satisfying eager expectancy, is certain; and that these devout souls, swayed by every emotion of glad and exultant enthusiasm, would constantly mistake the suggestions of their own thoughts for objective realities is probable. jesus died, was buried, and rose again "according to the scriptures." this would harden every timid supposition into assurance; and as time went on, what was doubtful would become certain, what was mysterious, clear; and those who had seen nothing would take up and strengthen the tradition of those who had seen the lord. it is argued that there was not time for the preparation of the disciples to believe in the resurrection of jesus between his crucifixion and "the third day," when that event is alleged to have occurred, and, consequently, no probability of subjective impressions of so unexpected a nature being received. to those { } apologists who adopt this argument we might point to many passages in the gospels, which affirm that the resurrection on the third day was predicted. these, however, we assign of course to a later date. the argument assumes that there was no preparation in the teaching of jesus, which, as we have endeavoured to suggest, is not the case. if there had been no other, the mere assurance that he was the messiah must have led to reflections, which demanded some other sequel to his career than the death of a slave. the mere suggestion of such a problem as must have proposed itself to the minds of the disciples: if all is to end here, jesus was not the messiah: if he was the messiah, what will now happen?--must have led to expectant attention. but there was much more than this. in such moments as those of the passion, thought works feverishly and fast. it is not to be supposed that peter and the rest did not foresee the end, when jesus was led away prisoner in the hands of his enemies. it is still less to be imagined that their minds were not ceaselessly revolving that problem, on the solution of which depended their fondest hopes and highest aspirations. it is most probable, indeed, that no time could have found the disciples in a state so ripe for strong impressions as that immediately succeeding the death of their master. there are, however, other aspects in which this point may be placed. what evidence is there that jesus was seen, or supposed to have been seen, on the third day? absolutely none worthy of the name. paul does not say that he was, and as for the gospels their { } statement is of no value, and the tradition which they record may be set down as a foregone dogmatic con-elusion. paul very distinctly shows this. he says: "for i delivered unto you first of all that which i also received, that christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he has been raised the third day, according to the scriptures."( ) the repetition of the phrase "according to the scriptures" is very marked, and points to the fact that the purpose for which jesus died--"for our sins"--and the date of his resurrection--"the third day"--are statements directly based upon scripture. we have mentioned that the scriptures supposed to indicate the third day, do not really apply to the messiah at all, but this does not affect the question before us. now believing this epoch to be defined in prophecy, this is precisely one of those points upon which memory would, in the lapse of time, be most likely to adjust itself to the prophecy. we will assume that jesus was not "seen" before the third day. it is obvious that if he was seen forty days after, it might be affirmed that he had been actually raised long before, on the third day. the vision occurring on the third day itself, even, could not prove that he had not "risen" before. there is, in fact, no way that we can see of fixing the third day except the statement ol "scripture," and, the moment we accept that, we must recognize the force of dogmatic influence.( ) the fact that the third day has from early we do not go into any argument based on the order given in the first two synoptics to go into galilee--a three days' journey at least--where the disciples were to see jesus. nor need we touch upon other similar points which arise out of the narratives of the gospels. { } times been set apart as the christian sabbath, does not prove anything. if the third day was believed to be the day indicated by "scripture" for the resurrection, of course that day would be selected as the time at which it must have occurred, and on which it should be commemorated. so far as the vision hypothesis is concerned, the day is of no consequence whatever, and the objection upon this point has no force. there is another consideration which we must mention, which is not only important in connection with an estimate of the evidence for the resurrection, but the inferences from which clearly support the explanation we are proposing. before stating it we may, in passing, again refer to the fact that it is nowhere affirmed that anyone was an eye-witness of the actual resurrection. it is supposed to be proved by the circumstance that jesus was subsequently "seen." observe, however, that the part of this miracle which could not well have been ascribed to subjective impressions--the actual resurrection--is, naturally enough, not seen by anyone, but that which comes precisely within the scope of such subjective action is said to have been seen by many. to come at once to our point, however, neither paul, nor the gospels, nor christian tradition in any form, pretends that jesus was seen by any one but his disciples and those who believed in him. in fact, jesus only appeared to those who were prepared by faith and expectant attention to see him in the manner we assert. we are at present merely speaking of the earlier appearances, and reserving paul for separate discussion. why, we may inquire, did jesus not appear to his { } enemies as well as to his friends?( ) nothing of course could have been more intelligible than his desire to comfort and reassure those who believed in and mourned for him, but to do this by no means excluded a wider manifestation of himself, supposing him to have actually risen from the dead. on the hypothesis that he only rose again and was seen through the yearning and enthusiastic faith of his followers, the reason why he was not seen by others is not hard to find. yet it might be thought that the object of at once establishing beyond doubt his supernatural mission, and convincing his enemies of their crime, and the jews of their blindness and folly, was important enough. had he shown himself to the chief priests and elders, and confounded the pharisees with the vision of him whom they had so cruelly nailed to the accursed tree, how might not the future of his followers have been smoothed, and the faith of many made strong! or if he had stood again in the courts of the roman procurator, no longer a prisoner buffeted and spat upon, but the glorious messiah, beyond the reach of jewish malignity or roman injustice. but no, he was seen by none but those devoted to him. we shall of course be told by apologists that this also was "for the trial of our faith;" though to anyone who earnestly reflects, it must seem childish to ask men to believe what is beyond their reason, yet conceal the evidence by which reason is supposed to be guided. the reply, however, is clear: for the trial of our faith or for any other reason, it is nevertheless certain that this evidence does not exist. { } when the argument which we are now discussing was first advanced long ago by celsus, origen had no better refutation than, after admitting the fact that jesus was not after his resurrection seen as before publicly and by all men, to take refuge in the belief that the passage of paul regarding his appearances contains wonderful mysteries which, if understood, would explain why jesus did not show himself after that event as he had done before it.( ) we must now proceed to show that the vision of paul is satisfactorily explained by the same hypothesis.( ) we have already proved that there is no evidence of any value that paul's conversion was due to his having seen jesus in a manner which he believed to be objective and supernatural. to represent the arch persecutor paul transformed in a moment, by a miraculous vision of jesus, into the apostle of the gentiles was highly characteristic of the author of contra cels., ii. . it is curious that, in an earlier chapter, origen, discussing the question of celsus,--whether any one who had been actually dead had ever risen with a real body, says that if celsus had been a jew who believed that elijah and elisha had raised little children he could not have advanced this objection. origen adds that he thinks the reason why jesus appeared to no other nation but the jews was, that they had become accustomed to miracles, and could, by comparing the works of jesus and what was told of him with what had been done before, recognize that he was greater than all who had preceded him. ii. . { } acts, who further represents paul as immediately preaching publicly in damascus and confounding the jews. widely different is the statement of paul. he distinctly affirms that he did not communicate with flesh and blood, nor went he up to jerusalem to them which were apostles before him, but that he immediately went away into arabia. the fathers delighted in representing this journey to arabia as an instance of paul's fervour and eagerness to preach the gospel in lands over which its sound had not yet gone forth. there can be no doubt, however, we think, that paul's journey to arabia and his sojourn there were for the purpose of reflection.( ) it is only in legends that instantaneous spiritual revolutions take place. in sober history the process is more slow and progressive. we repeat that there is no evidence which can at all be accepted that paul's conversion was effected by a vision, and that it is infinitely more probable that it was, so to say, merely completed and crowned by seeing jesus; but, at the same time, even if the view be held that this vision was the decisive circumstance which induced paul at once to resign his course of persecution and embrace christianity, our argument is not materially affected. in any case, much silent, deep, and almost unconscious preparation for the change must long before have proceeded in the mind of paul, which was finally matured in the arabian waste. upon no view that is taken can this be excluded; upon every ground of common sense, experience, and necessary inference, it must be admitted. { } indifference is the only great gulf which separates opinions. there was no stolid barrier of apathy between saul of tarsus and belief in the messiah-ship of jesus. in persecuting christianity, paul proved two things: the earnestness and energy of his convictions, and the fact that his attention was keenly directed to the new sect. both points contributed to the result we are discussing. paul's judaism was no mere formalism. it was the adoption, heart and soul, of the religion of his people; which was to him no dead principle, but a living faith stimulating that eager impetuous character to defend its integrity with "fire and sword." he did not, like so many of his countrymen, turn away with scorn from the followers of the despised nazarene and leave them to their delusion; but turned to them, on the contrary, with the fierce attraction of the zealot whose own belief is outraged by the misbelief of others. the earnest jew came into sharp collision with the earnest christian. the earnestness of each was an element of mutual respect. the endurance and firmness of the one might not melt the bigoted resolution of the other, but it arrested his attention and commanded his unconscious sympathy. just so would the persecutor have endured and resisted persecution; so, subsequently, he actually did meet it. and what was the main difference between the persecutor and the persecuted? it consisted in that which constituted the burden of the apostolic preaching: the belief that "this was the christ." the creed of the new sect at least was not complicated. it was little more at that time than a question of identity, until paul himself developed it into an elaborate system of theology. { } in this question of identity, however, there was comprised a vast change of national ideas. to the devout jew,--looking for the hope of israel, yearning and praying for the advent of that son of david who was to sit upon the throne of his fathers, restore the fortunes of the people, drive out the heathen and subdue the nations again to the yoke of israel, establishing the worship of jehovah in its purity and turning the gentiles to the service of the god of gods,--it was an abhorrent thought that the lowly peasant who had died a shameful death on golgotha should be represented as the messiah, the promised king of the jews. still there was something sufficiently startling in the idea to excite reflection. a political aspirant, who pretended to play the part, and after some feeble attempt at armed insurrection had been crushed by the heel of the roman, could not have attracted attention. in that, there would have been no originality to astonish, and no singularity to require explanation. this man, on the contrary, who was said to be the messiah, assumed no earthly dignity; claimed no kingdom in this world; had not even a place to lay his head; but ended a short and unambitious career as the teacher of a simple but profound system of morality by death on a cross. there was no vulgar imitation here. this was the reverse of the messiah of the jews. in spite of so much dissimilarity, however, there was in the two parties a fundamental agreement of belief. the jew expected the messiah; the christian believed he had now come. the messiah expected by the jew was certainly a very different saviour from the despised and rejected jesus of nazareth, but at the root of the { } christian faith lay belief in a messiah. it was a thoroughly jewish belief, springing out of the covenant with the fathers, and based upon the law and the prophets. the difference was not one of principle but one of details. their interpretation of the promises was strangely dissimilar, but the trust of both was in the god of israel. to pass from one to the other did not involve the adoption of a new religion, but merely a modification of the views of the old. once convinced that the messiah was not a political ruler but a spiritual guide, not a victorious leader, but a suffering servant of jehovah, the transition from judaic hopes to recognition of jesus was almost accomplished. it is clear that paul in his capacity of persecutor must have become well acquainted with the views of the christians, and probably must have heard them repeatedly expounded by his captives before the jewish sanhedrin. he must have heard the victims of his blind religious zeal affirming their faith with all that ecstatic assurance which springs out of persecution. the vision of peter contributed to the vision of paul. there can be no doubt that paul must have become aware of the application to jesus of old testament prophecies, and of the new conception thence derived of a suffering messiah. the political horizon was certainly not suggestive of the coming of the lord's anointed. never had the fortunes of israel been at a lower ebb. the hope of a prince of the house of david to restore dominion to the fallen race was hard to entertain. the suggestion of an alternative theory based upon a new interpretation of the prophets, if startling, was not untimely, when the old confidence { } was becoming faint in many minds, and the hope of his coming seemed so distant and unsure. if we do not misjudge the character of paul, however shocked he may have been at first by the substitution of a crucified nazarene for the triumphant messiah of his earlier visions, there must have been something profoundly pleasing to his mind in the conception of a spiritual messiah. as he became familiar with the idea, it is probable that flashes of doubt must have crossed his mind as to the correctness of his more material views. if the belief were true, which christians professed, that this jesus, despised and rejected of men, was actually the suffering servant of jehovah, and this servant of jehovah the messiah! if the claim of this jesus who had been esteemed smitten of god and afflicted, had been verified by his rising again from the dead and ascending to the right hand of god! this aspect of the messianic idea had a mystery and significance congenial to the soul of paul. the supernatural elements could have presented no difficulties to him. belief in the resurrection was part of his creed as a pharisee. that the risen messiah should have been seen by many, the fundamental idea once admitted, could not surprise the visionary jew. we can well imagine the conflict which went on in the ardent mind of paul when doubts first entered it; his resistance and struggle for the faith of his youth; the pursuance as duty of the course he had begun, whilst the former conviction no longer strengthened the feverish energy; the excitement of religious zeal in the mad course of persecution, not to be arrested in a moment, but become, by growing doubt, bitterness and pain to him; the suffering { } inflicted sending its pang into his own flesh. there was ample preparation in such a situation for the vision of paul. the constitution and temperament of the apostle were eminently calculated to receive impressions of the strongest description.( ) we have mentioned the conjecture of many able men that his "stake in the flesh" was a form of epilepsy. it is, of course, but a conjecture, though one which has great probability,( ) and we must not treat it otherwise; but, if it could be proved correct, much light would be thrown upon paul's visions. we have discussed the apostle's statements regarding the supernatural charismata in the church, and have seen his extreme readiness to believe in the lavish bestowal of miraculous gifts where others could recognise but ordinary qualities. that paul should be able to claim the power of speaking with tongues more than all the corinthians, whose exercise of that spiritual gift he so unceremoniously restrains, is in perfect keeping with all that we elsewhere learn about him. everywhere we find the keenly impressionable nature so apt to fall into the ecstatic state when brought under the influence of active religious emotion. "i must glory," he exclaims with irresistible impulse on coming to a theme so congenial to him, "i must glory; it is not indeed expedient, but i will come to visions and revelations of the lord."( ) even when he speaks of the stake in his flesh, which he does in such suggestive connection with his visions, he describes it as sent lest he should "be exalted above measure by the { } excess of the revelations."( ) we have so repeatedly had to refer to paul's claim to have received his gospel by special revelation that we need not again speak of it here. if we could quote acts as a genuine representation of christian tradition regarding paul, we might point out the visions and revelations therein so freely ascribed to him, but his own writings are amply sufficient for our purpose. even his second journey to jerusalem is attributed to the direction of revelation.( ) the only vision regarding which the apostle gives any particulars is that referred to, cor. xii. : "i know a man in christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body i know not, whether out of the body i know not, god knoweth), such an one caught up even unto the third heaven. . and i know such a man (whether in the body or out of the body i know not, god knoweth), . that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. . for such an one will i boast," etc.( ) it has been argued from this passage and the repetition of the expression "whether in the body or out of the body i know not," that paul himself could clearly distinguish objective facts from subjective impressions.( ) no interpretation could well be more erroneous. it is evident that paul has no doubt whatever of his having been in the third heaven and in paradise, and as little of { } his having heard the unspeakable words. that is quite objectively real to him. his only doubt is whether the body was caught up with his soul upon this occasion.( ) no one who has carefully considered such phenomena and examined the statements here made can have any doubt as to the nature of this vision. the conception of being caught up into "the third heaven," "into paradise," and there hearing these "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter," betrays in no doubtful manner the source of the subjective impressions. of course, divines who are prepared to see in this passage the account of an actual objective event will not consider it evidence that paul had subjective visions which he believed to have been objective facts; but to those who, more rightly and reasonably, we think, recognize the subjective character of the vision, it must at once definitely settle the point that paul could mistake subjective impressions for objective realities, and consequently the argument for the similar subjectivity of the vision of jesus becomes complete. the possibility of such a mistake is precisely what apologists question. here is an instance in which the mistake has clearly been made by paul. the apostle's own statements show him to have been superlatively visionary and impressionable, with restless nervous energy it is true, but, at the same time, with keen physical and mental susceptibility. liable to be uplifted by "the excess of revelations," glorying in "visions and revelations of the lord," possessing ecstatic { } powers more than all others, subjecting his very movements, his visits to jerusalem, to the direction of impulses which he supposed to be revelations: there has never been a case in which both temperament and religious belief more thoroughly combined to ascribe, with perfect conviction, objective reality to subjective impressions connected with divine things then occupying his mind. paul moreover lived in a time when the messianic longing of the jews led them to be profoundly interested students of the later apocalyptic writings, which certainly made a deep impression upon the apostle, and in which he must have been struck by the image of the promised messiah, like the son of man, coming on the clouds of heaven (dan. vii. , cf. cor. xv. ).( ) at no time was such a vision more likely to present itself to him, than when his mind was fixed upon the messianic idea with all the intensity of one who had been persecuting those who asserted that the messiah had already come. here was reason for all that concentration of thought upon the subject which produces such visions: and when doubt and hesitation entered into that eager intense spirit, the conflict must have been sharp and the nerves highly strung. the jesus whom he saw with his mind's eye was the climax of conviction in such a nature; and the vision vividly brought to him his own self-reproachful thoughts for cruelly mistaken zeal, and the remorse of noble souls which bounds to reparation. he devoted himself as eagerly to christianity, as he had previously done to judaism. he changed the contents but not the form of his mind.( ) paul the { } christian was the same man as paul the jew; and in abandoning the conception of a messiah "according to the flesh," and placing his whole faith in one "according to the spirit," he displayed the same characteristics as before. the revolution in his mind, of which so much is said, was merely one affecting the messianic idea. he did not at a bound become the complete apostle of the gentiles, but accepting at first nothing more than belief in a messiah according to the spirit, his comprehensive and peculiar system of theology was, "of course, only the result of subsequent reflection. that his conviction should have been completed by a subjective vision is no more strange than that he should believe in supernatural charismata, miraculous speaking with tongues, and being actually caught up into the third heaven, into paradise, and hearing there unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. paul evidently never questioned the source of his visions. they were simply accepted as divine revelations, and they excited all the less of misgiving in his soul from the fact that, without doubt, they expressed the expected solution of problems which intensely occupied his mind, and reflected conclusions already practically formed by his own thoughts.( ) there remain two points to be briefly considered. { } the first of these is the assertion, constantly made in various shapes, that the cardinal miracles of the resurrection and ascension were proclaimed as unquestionable facts, without contradiction, at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. the production of the body, the still occupied sepulchre, it is said, would have set such pretensions at rest it is unnecessary to say that the proclamation of the resurrection and ascension as facts proved nothing beyond the belief, perhaps, of those who asserted them. so far as paul is concerned, we may seek in vain for any assertion of a bodily ascension. but there is not the slightest evidence to show when the resurrection and ascension were first publicly proclaimed as unquestionable facts. even the gospels do not state that they were mentioned beyond the circle of disciples. the second synoptist, who does not state that jesus himself was seen by any one, makes the curious affirmation at the close of his gospel as we have it, that the women, on receiving the announcement of the resurrection from the angels, and the command for the disciples and peter to go into galilee, "went out and fled from the sepulchre; for trembling and astonishment seized them, and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid."( ) in the fourth gospel, although the "beloved disciple" went into the sepulchre, "and he saw and believed," it is related of him and peter: "so the disciples went away again unto their own home."( ) the eleven, in fact, who all forsook their master and fled--who are represented as meeting with closed doors "for fear of the jews"--with closed doors after eight days, it is again said, although, a week before, ten of them are said to have seen jesus--were not likely to expose { } themselves to the fate of jesus by rushing into the highways and asserting the resurrection. beyond the statement of the gospels, the value of which we have seen, and a statement accompanied by so many confused circumstances, there is no evidence whatever that the sepulchre was found empty. there is no evidence that the sepulchre was really known to the disciples, none of whom, probably, was present at the crucifixion; and it might well be inferred that the women, who are represented as ignorant that the body had already been embalmed, yet who are the chief supposed witnesses for the empty sepulchre and the informants of the disciples, were equally ignorant of the sepulchre in which the body was laid. we might ask whether the brethren who are said to have seen jesus at the same time came from galilee, or wherever they were, and examined the state of the sepulchre? we have already said, however, that if the sepulchre had been shown to be empty, the very last thing which could be proved by that circumstance would be the correctness of the assertion that it had become so in consequence of a stupendous miracle. on the other hand, if it had been shown that it was occupied by a body, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the fact would have convinced any one not previously sure that jesus could not have risen from the dead, and he would not have required such evidence. when the resurrection was publicly proclaimed as a fact, the body could no longer have been recognizable, and the idea that any of those in authority could have thought such demonstration necessary to refute a story whispered about amongst an obscure sect in jerusalem, or even more courageously asserted, is a product of later times. when jesus of nazareth, the head of the nascent sect, was suppressed { } by a shameful death, his humble and timid followers were obviously for a time despised; and there is little reason to suppose that the chief priests and rulers of the jews would have condescended to any public contradiction of their affirmations, if they had even felt indifference to the defilement of exposing for such a purpose a decaying body to the gaze of jerusalem. this kind of refutation is possible only in the imagination of divines. besides, what evidence is there that even a single indifferent person found the sepulchre empty? there is not an iota of proof. on the contrary, there is the very strongest evidence that when the assertion of the resurrection and ascension as "unquestionable facts" was made, it was contradicted in the only practical and practicable way conceivable: ( .) by all but universal disbelief in jerusalem; ( .) by actual persecution of those who asserted it. it is a perfectly undeniable fact that the great mass of the jews totally denied the truth of the statement by disbelieving it, and that the converts to christianity who soon swelled the numbers of the church and spread its influence amongst the nations were not the citizens of jerusalem, who were capable of refuting such assertions, but strangers and gentiles. the number of the community of jerusalem after the forty days seems to be stated by the author of acts as "about ," and although the numbers added to the church, according to this document, are evidently fabulous, the converts at pentecost are apparently chiefly from amongst the devout men of every nation upon earth congregated at jerusalem. to this hour the jews have retained as their inheritance the denial by their forefathers of the asserted facts. the assertion, secondly, was emphatically denied by the persecution, as soon as it { } became worth any one's while to persecute, of those who made it. it was in this way denied by paul himself, at a time when verification was infinitely more possible than when he came to join in the assertion. are we to suppose that the apostle took no trouble to convince himself of the facts before he began to persecute? he was in the confidence of the high priests it seems, can he ever have heard the slightest doubt from them on the subject? is it not palpable that paul and his party, by their very pursuit of those who maintained such allegations, stigmatized them as falsehoods, and perhaps as imposture? if it be said that paul became convinced of his mistake, it is perfectly obvious that his conversion was not due to local and circumstantial evidence, but to dogmatic considerations and his supposed vision of jesus. he disbelieved when the alleged occurrences were recent and, as it is said, capable of refutation; he believed when the time for such refutation had passed. the second point to which we have referred is the vague and final objection of apologists that, if the vision of jesus was merely subjective, the fabric of the church and even of christianity is based upon unreality and self-deception. is this possible? they ask. is it possible that for eighteen centuries the resurrection and ascension have been proclaimed and believed by millions, with no other original foundation than self-delusion? the vagueness and apparent vastness of this objection, perhaps, make it a formidable _argumentum ad hominem_, but it vanishes into very small proportions as we approach it. must we then understand that the dogmas of all religions which have been established must have been objective truths? and that this is a necessary inference from their wide adoption? if so, then all { } historical religions before christianity, and after it, must take rank as substantially true. in that case the religion of the veda, of buddha, of zoroaster, of mahomet, for instance, can as little be based on unreality and self-deception as christianity. they have secured wide acceptance from mankind. millions have for centuries devoutly held their tenets, and to this day the followers of sakya muni are as numerous as the believers in the religion of paul. if not, the objection at once falls to the ground as an argument, and the problem becomes a simple matter of evidence, which has been fully discussed and disposed of. when we analyse the fact, it becomes apparent that, ultimately, belief in the resurrection and ascension resolves itself into the belief of a few or of one. it requires very little reflection to perceive that the christian church is founded much more upon belief in the resurrection than on the fact itself.( ) nothing is more undeniable than the circumstance that not more than a very small number of men are even alleged to have seen the risen jesus. the mass of those who have believed in the resurrection have done so because of the assurance of these few men, and perhaps because they may have been led to think that the event was predicted in scripture. up to this day, converts to the dogma are made, if made at all, upon the assurance of paul and the gospels. the vast question at last dwindles down to the inquiry: can a few men, can one man, draw erroneous inferences and be honestly deceived by something supposed to have been seen? we presume that there can be no hesitation in giving an affirmative reply. the rest follows as a matter of { } course. others simply believe the report of those who have believed before them. in course of time, so many believe that it is considered almost outrageous to disbelieve or demand evidence. the number of those who have believed is viewed at last as an overwhelming proof of the truth of the creed. it is a most striking and extraordinary fact that the life and teaching of jesus have scarcely a place in the system of paul. had we been dependent upon him we should have had no idea of the great master who preached the sermon on the mount, and embodied pure truths in parables of such luminous simplicity. his noble morality would have remained unknown, and his lessons of rare spiritual excellence have been lost to the world. paul sees no significance in that life, but concentrates all interest in the death and resurrection of his messiah. in the sepulchre hewn out of the rock are deposited the teaching and example of jesus, and from it there rises a mystic christ lost in a halo of theology. the ecclesiastical christianity which was mainly paul's work has almost effaced the true work of jesus. too little can now be traced of that teaching, and few are the genuine records of his work which have survived the pious enthusiasm evoked by his character. theology has done its worst with the life; and that death, which will ever be the darkest blot upon history, has been represented as the climax of divine beneficence. the resurrection and ascension have deified jesus of nazareth; but they have done so at the expense of all that was most truly sublime in his work. { } the world will gain when it recognises the real character and source of such dogmas, and resigns this inheritance from the age of miracles. for, although we lose a faith which has long been our guide in the past, we need not now fear to walk boldly with truth in the future, and turning away from fancied benefits to be derived from the virtue of his death, we may find real help and guidance from more earnest contemplation of the life and teaching of jesus. { } conclusions. we have seen that divine revelation could only be necessary or conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as divine. it is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the specific revelation which we are considering, the very substance of which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be pronounced "the wildest delusions." "by no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements." on examining the alleged miraculous evidence for christianity as divine revelation, however, we find that even if the actual occurrence of the supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are performed by various spiritual beings, satanic as well as divine, and are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive and for the trial of faith. as the doctrines supposed to be revealed { } are beyond reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a nature could sufficiently attest them. this alone would disqualify the christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of performing. the supposed miraculous evidence for the divine revelation, moreover, is not only without any special divine character, being avowedly common also to satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or details. similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first promulgation of christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after it. a stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlightenment. the evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the christian miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the people to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. the selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more characteristic of human weakness than of divine power. the true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. there is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to { } believe that the witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. no miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of imagination. the test applied to the largest class of miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all miraculous pretension. there is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural interference with nature. the assertion that spurious miracles have sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a single valid argument to support it. history clearly demonstrates that, wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely acknowledged that, under their influence, inexplicable and miraculous are convertible terms. on the other hand, in proportion as knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural interference with the order of nature has been dispelled, and miracles have ceased. the effect of science, however, is not limited to the present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of natural cause and effect, are now restored to their place in the unbroken order. ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for ever annihilated them. to justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an infinite personal god; and second, a divine design of revelation, the execution of which necessarily involves supernatural action. miracles, it is argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate { } causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this infinite personal god for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the divine design. neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably maintained. the assumption of an infinite personal god: a being at once limited and unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself. moreover, the assumption of a god working miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order of nature. the allegation of a specific divine cause of miracles is further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is avowedly not limited to a personal god, but is also ascribed to other spiritual beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not with another. on the other hand, the assumption of a divine design of revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived from the very revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise the assumption of a personal god, and both are equally vicious as arguments. the circumstances which are supposed to require this divine design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible, and opposed to all the results of science. nature does not countenance any theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as inconsistent with divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them are opposed to justice and morality. such assumptions are essentially inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. { } whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena must at least be antecedently incredible. in the absence of absolute knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously greater than can be the testimony for my alleged exception to it. on the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and superstition are present. when the report of the original witnesses only reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the probability of error is further increased. thus the allegation of miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation and testimony. the history of miraculous pretension in the world, and the circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are examining, suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. when we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the christian miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralizing the preceding considerations. on the contrary, we find that the case turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years ago. it is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force and validity, it is essential that { } their character and authorship should be placed beyond all doubt. they must proceed from eye-witnesses capable of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. our four gospels, however, are strictly anonymous works. the superscriptions which now distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works themselves, and do not proceed from the composers of the gospels. of the writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and third synoptics neither having been personal followers of jesus, nor eyewitnesses of the events they describe. under these circumstances, we are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical gospels. in examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite principles. without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the date or origin of our gospels, we simply searched the writings of the fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for information regarding the composition and character of these works, and even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these could prove little beyond the mere existence of the gospels used at the date of the writer. in the latter and minor investigation, we were guided by canons of criticism previously laid down, and which are based upon the simplest laws of evidence. we found that the writings of the fathers, during a century and a half after the death of jesus, are a complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and character of our gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition preserved by papias, after the middle of the second century, the details of which fully justify { } the conclusion that our first and second synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been composed by matthew and mark. there is thus no evidence whatever directly connecting any of the canonical gospels with the writers to whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. with one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous use of any of our gospels in the early church. this fact, of course, does not justify the conclusion that none of these gospels was actually in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence shows that there is no positive proof that they were. the exception to which we refer is marcion's gospel, which was, we think, based upon our third synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the existence of that work. marcion, however, does not give the slightest information as to the authorship of the gospel, and his charges against it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to its infallible character. the canonical gospels continue to the end anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. they do not themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from the ordinary rules of criticism. internal evidence does not modify the inferences from external testimony. apart from continual minor contradictions throughout the first three gospels, it is impossible to reconcile the representations of the synoptics with those of the fourth gospel. they mutually destroy each other as evidence. they must { } be pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous occurrences, nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. they cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of divine revelation. applying similar tests to the acts of the apostles, we arrived at similar results. acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the third synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. there is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with miraculous incidents and supernatural agency, that the credibility of the narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for it any serious consideration. when the statements of the author are compared with the emphatic declarations of the apostle paul, and with authentic accounts of the development of the early christian church, it becomes evident that the acts of the apostles, as might have been supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so suspiciously abound. the remaining books of the new testament canon required no separate examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional testimony to the reality of divine revelation, beyond the implied belief in such doctrines as the incarnation and resurrection. it is unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the apostles believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so, supersedes the necessity for { } examining the authenticity of the catholic epistles and apocalypse. in like manner, the recognition as genuine of four epistles of paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters attributed to him. the general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the church is brought to a practical test in the case of the apostle paul. after elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the unconscious testimony of paul clearly demonstrates the facility with which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into supernatural occurrences. as a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the cardinal dogmas of christianity, the resurrection and ascension of jesus. first taking the four gospels, we found that their accounts of these events are not only full of legendary matter, but that they even contradict and exclude each other, and so far from establishing the reality of such stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the statements of the unknown authors. taking next the testimony of paul, which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries of christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. his so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the statements in the gospels, and without other attestation than the bare fact that it is repeated by paul, who doubtless believed it, although he had not himself been a witness { } of any of the supposed appearances of the risen jesus which he so briefly catalogues. paul's own personal testimony to the resurrection is limited to a vision of jesus, of which we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of paul, of which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of jesus. the testimony of paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualized religion, was an earnest denial of the great christian dogma emphasized by the active persecution of those who affirmed it, and a vision, especially in the case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the fact of the resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is not an argument of convincing force. we were compelled to pronounce the evidence for the resurrection and ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. there is no reason given, or even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in the case of any common question of property or title before a legal tribunal on the contrary, the more momentous the point to be established, the more complete must be the proof required. if we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established. there is nothing original in the { } claim of christianity to be regarded as divine revelation, and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. there has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. there is not a doctrine, sacrament or rite of christianity which has not substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single phase of the supernatural history of the christ, from his miraculous conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection and ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. the same may be said even of the moral teaching of christianity, the elevated precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated by ancient sages and philosophers. that this inquiry into the reality of divine revelation has been limited to the claim of christianity has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to the only religion in connection with which it could practically interest us now. there is nothing in the history and achievements of christianity which can be considered characteristic of a religion divinely revealed for the salvation of mankind. originally said to have been communicated to a single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of god, and for whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost unanimously rejected by that { } nation at the time, and it has continued to be repudiated by its descendants with singular unanimity to the present day. after more than eighteen centuries, this divine scheme of salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a third of the human race,( ) and if, in a census of christendom, distinction could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as supernatural religion, christianity would take a much lower numerical position. sakya muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to jesus, and who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries never sought converts in the west. considered as a scheme divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human race, and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by god himself incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be regarded as practical { } failure, although they may not be disproportionate for a system of elevated morality. we shall probably never be able to determine how far the great teacher may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. it is to the excited veneration of the followers of jesus, however, that we owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and people. we may look in vain even in the synoptic gospels for the doctrines elaborated in the pauline epistles and the gospel of ephesus. the great transformation of christianity was effected by men who had never seen jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after it had become transmuted by tradition. the fervid imagination of the east constructed christian theology. it is not difficult to follow the development of the creeds of the church, and it is certainly most instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas were expanded by pious enthusiasm. the new testament alone represents several stages of dogmatic evolution. before his first followers had passed away the process of transformation had commenced. the disciples, who had so often misunderstood the teaching of jesus during his life, piously distorted it after his death. his simple lessons of meekness and humility were soon forgotten. with lamentable rapidity, the elaborate structure of ecclesiastical christianity, following stereotyped lines of human superstition, and deeply coloured by alexandrian { } philosophy, displaced the sublime morality of jesus. doctrinal controversy, which commenced amongst the very apostles, has ever since divided the unity of the christian body. the perverted ingenuity of successive generations of churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. it is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a substitute for the shattered idol. to this we may reply that speech or silence does not alter the reality of things. the recognition of truth cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by considerations of spurious expediency. its declaration in a serious and suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be premature. its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. in so far as morality is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and even in our own, but it may, we think, be shown that education and civilization have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. how far christianity has promoted education and civilization, we shall not here venture adequately to discuss. we may emphatically assert, however, that whatever beneficial effect christianity has produced has been due, not to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. dogmatic theology, { } on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. wherever it has been dominant civilization has stood still. science has been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of genesis. almost every great advance which has been made towards enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema of the church. submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. "except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of doctors of divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of assimilation by the virile mind. even now, the fiction of theological resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. the early enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the world, but experience being once systematized and codified, if higher principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals sufficiently observed. it is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a divine institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than it must be as the simple result of human wisdom, and the outcome of social experience. the choice of a noble life is no longer a theological question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have finally expired. morality, which has ever changed its complexion and modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. if we are disposed to say: { } _cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can as well be produced by social compulsion. but if we have ever been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as essential to christianity. as to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by such an inquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. can truth by any means be made less true? can reality be melted into thin air? the revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an illusion, and that which is left is the truth. losing belief in it and its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and green shades before him, melts swiftly away. there were no cool fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the desert with its barrenness. not so, is the friendly warning; seek not vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other horizons, and to surer hopes. do not waste life clinging to ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. what should we think of the man who persistently repulsed { } the persuasion that two and two make four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? whose fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? whose folly is it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five than to know that they only make four? this folly is theirs who represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special illusions, which they have religiously adopted. to discover that a former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of existence. the sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we believe it to be noon or not. it is idle and foolish, if human, to repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. the argument so often employed by theologians that divine revelation is necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that revelation are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived from the revelation which it seeks to maintain. the only thing absolutely necessary for man is truth; and to that, and that alone, must our moral consciousness adapt itself. reason and experience forbid the expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through natural channels. we might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished as supernaturally informed. to complain that we do not know all that we desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. it is tantamount to complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. to attain the full altitude of the knowable, whatever that may be, should be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. we may be certain that information which is beyond the ultimate { } reach of reason is as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. man may know all that man requires to know. we gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our theology is human invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. we are freed from the incubus of base hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of divine government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the place of holiness. if we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic visions of future blessedness, the details of which are either of unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [------], and our eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. at the end of life there may be no definite vista of a heaven glowing with the light of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable horror of a purgatory or a hell lurid with flames for the helpless victims of an unjust but omnipotent creator. to entertain such libellous representations at all as part of the contents of "divine revelation," it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways of the god of revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty despot. but now the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns to the jewish superstition from which it sprang. as myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be baseless, the power of supernatural christianity will doubtless pass away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although it { } cannot here be fully discussed. if the pictures which have filled for so long the horizon of the future must vanish, no hideous blank can rightly be maintained in their place. we should clearly distinguish between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. that mysterious unknown or unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. [illustration: book cover] no. . christ in the storm. by the author of "peep of day." london: john hatchard and son. [illustration] christ in the storm. there are a great many troubles in this life. ask your father and your mother whether this is true. your father will say, "i have had a great many troubles; i have found it hard to get bread for my children." your mother will say, "i have had a great deal of sorrow in bringing up my little family." my dear child, have you had any troubles? i am sure you have had some. have you ever felt great pain? have you lost a little baby brother or sister? have you got into disgrace? have you been punished for your faults? there is one friend to whom every one may go in every trouble. it is jesus, the son of god. when we are unhappy, if we cry unto him, he will hear us and help us. once he lived down upon this earth, and was a man. now he is in heaven, and he is a man still as well as god. i will tell you how he helped some of his friends out of trouble when he lived in this world. his friends were called disciples. one evening they went into a ship. jesus did not go with them; he stayed where he was, and spent the night all alone on the top of a mountain, praying to his father. god was his father. the disciples were in their little ship on the water when the wind began to blow very hard indeed. the waves rose high, and the ship was tossed about. every moment the poor men were afraid that the water would fill their ship, and that they should sink to the bottom of the sea. all night long the disciples were in sad distress, trying with all their might to row their ship to land, but all they could do was of no use. at last they saw a man walking on the sea. there he was in the midst of the great waves, walking as on the dry land. he went faster than the ship, and seemed as if he would pass by it. the disciples did not know who it was. they thought it could not be a man with a body like ours; they supposed it was a spirit, who has no body. they were very much frightened, and they cried out in their trouble. then they heard a voice saying, "it is i, be not afraid." whose voice was that? you know, and they knew; it was the voice of jesus. though the winds were whistling and the waves roaring, his voice could be heard. one of the disciples, named peter, said, "lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." jesus said, "come." so peter got out of the ship and walked on the water to go to jesus. he believed that jesus could help him to walk on the water, and jesus did help him. but when peter saw how high the wind was, he began to be afraid. this was wrong. he ought to have trusted in jesus. soon he felt that he was sinking, and he cried out, "lord, save me." jesus heard that short prayer; he was very near, and he stretched out his hand, and caught hold of peter. trusting in god is called faith. peter had a little faith, but not much. so he was able to walk on the water a little way, but not far. jesus went into the ship and took peter with him, and as soon as he was there the wind left off blowing. then all the disciples came round him and worshipped him, saying, "truly thou art the son of god." it is this jesus who can help you in your troubles. will you trust him? do not be like peter, and only trust him a little while, but go on trusting in him, and you will find that he will keep you safe, and make you happy. he forgives sins, which no one else can do, because he died upon the cross to save us from our sins. when we are dying he will not leave us if we trust in him, but he will comfort us and take us to heaven. this history you will find in matt. xiv. -- ; mark vi. -- . i lay my sins on jesus, the spotless lamb of god; he bears them all, and frees us from the accursed load. i bring my guilt to jesus, to wash my crimson stains white in his blood most precious, till not a spot remains. i lay my wants on jesus, all fulness dwells in him, he healeth my diseases, he doth my soul redeem. i lay my griefs on jesus, my burdens and my cares; he from them all releases, he all my sorrows shares. i love the name of jesus-- immanuel, christ, the lord! like fragrance on the breezes, his name is spread abroad. i long to be like jesus-- meek, loving, lowly, mild; i long to be like jesus-- the father's holy child. i long to be with jesus, amid the heavenly throng, to sing with saints his praises, to learn the angels' song. [_the writer unknown._] the end. macintosh, printer, great new-street, london. prayer. o father in heaven, thou hast made all things; the sun, moon, and stars, the land and sea. thou hast made me. thou hast taken care of me. i thank thee for all thy kindness. great god, thou art in every place; thou seest in the dark, as well as in the light; thou knowest all the naughty things that i have done, and said, and thought. o merciful lord, pardon my sins, because jesus christ, thy dear son, died upon the cross for sinners. give me thy holy spirit, that i may love thee, and obey thy laws. keep me from minding satan, and save me from going to hell: and whenever i die, o take my soul to heaven. when jesus comes with clouds, and with the holy angels, may i be glad to see him. may my dear parents, and brothers, and sisters, be happy with thee for ever and ever. may all people love thee, and speak of thy goodness. hear me for christ's sake. amen. [illustration] no. . the child who died and lived again. by the author of "peep of day." london: john hatchard and son. . [illustration] the child who died and lived again. did you ever see a person who was dead? perhaps you have seen one of your own brothers or sisters lying on a death-bed. what a change takes place when we die! no more breath comes out of the mouth, no colour is seen on the cheeks; the eye can look at us no longer, nor the tongue speak to us; the body soon grows cold and stiff; it has no more feeling than the ground on which we tread. and why? because the soul is gone out of the body. while the soul or spirit is in us we are alive, but when it is gone out then we are dead. the soul can never die, but the body is only made of dust, and it soon crumbles away and becomes dust again. no one can make a dead person alive again. yet once there was a man in this world who made dead people alive. who was that man? he was called jesus; he was not only a man, he was god too; he was the son of god. most people would not believe that he was the son of god, though he said he was. yet we are sure he said true, for if he had been a wicked man he could not have made dead people alive again. god his father was with him, and this was the reason he did such wonderful things. one day a rich man came to jesus, and fell down at his feet, and begged him to come to his house. he said, "my little daughter is dying." he was very unhappy, he loved his little girl very much, and she was his only child. his name was jairus, but i do not know the name of his little girl. i do know her age, she was twelve years old. the father thought that if jesus only put his hands upon her he could make her well. the son of god was very kind to people in trouble. he went with the father, and a great crowd followed him. as he went along the road, he was pressed on every side by those who wanted to see him and to hear what he said. before he reached the sick man's house, some people came and said to the father, "your daughter is dead." they told him it was now of no use for jesus to come. they little knew what he could do; but jesus said to the father, "do not be afraid, she shall be made well." when he came to the house, he only allowed three of his friends to come in with him. their names were peter, james, and john. there was a great noise and bustle in the house; there were men playing music, and people weeping and crying out with loud voices because the girl was dead. when jesus came into the room where she was lying, he said to these people, "why do you make this noise? the girl is not dead, she only sleeps." then they began to laugh at him, for they knew the child was dead. why did jesus say she slept? because she was soon to be made alive. her death was like sleep. jesus would not let the people who mocked, stay in the room, but he let the girl's father and mother be there, and his own three friends. there were just these five in the room with him when he went to the bed and took hold of the girl's hand and said, "girl, i say unto thee, arise." immediately her spirit (or her soul) came again into her body. then she was alive. she was now quite well; she was not weak now, as she had been; she got up out of her bed and walked about. then jesus desired that something might be given her to eat. her parents were very much surprised. they had been afraid that jesus would not be able to make her alive. they did not know he could do everything. he made all our bodies and gave us souls, and one day he will call all the dead people out of their graves. i wonder whether that young girl loved jesus. she was old enough to understand what he said. at twelve years old children can understand almost as well as men and women can; they learn more quickly, and remember better. though they love play still, they have a great deal of sense. some children at twelve years old begin to take great pains with their learning; then they get on very fast. some begin to be very useful; they can do more now than take care of the baby or run upon errands, and often they get places as servants. if they are steady, and tell no lies, they are trusted and get on well in the world. some children at twelve years old begin to think about their souls and to say, "what would become of me if i were to die?" they go and hear sermons, and they can understand them. they look in the bible, and they can understand a great deal which they read. then some begin to pray and to say, "merciful god, give me thy holy spirit, for the sake of jesus christ." but there are some who at twelve years old will mind their parents no longer. they say, "we are not little babies now, we will do as we please." they forget all the kindness their parents have shown them for twelve years, and they forget the words that god has spoken, "honour thy father and thy mother." you can read the history of the daughter of jairus in your bible in mark v. verses , , and to end; luke viii. , , and to end. the dying child. why do you weep? i am falling asleep, and jesus my shepherd, is watching his sheep; his arm is beneath me, his eye is above; his spirit within me says, "rest in my love: with blood i have bought thee, and wash'd thee from sin; with care i have brought thee my fold to be in; refresh'd by still waters, in green pastures fed, thy day has gone by-- i am making thy bed." _extract in "the twin brothers."_ the end. macintosh, printer, great new-street, london. prayer. o father in heaven, thou hast made all things; the sun, moon, and stars, the land and sea. thou hast made me. thou hast taken care of me. i thank thee for all thy kindness. great god, thou art in every place; thou seest in the dark, as well as in the light; thou knowest all the naughty things that i have done, and said, and thought. o merciful lord, pardon my sins, because jesus christ, thy dear son, died upon the cross for sinners. give me thy holy spirit, that i may love thee, and obey thy laws. keep me from minding satan, and save me from going to hell: and whenever i die, o take my soul to heaven. when jesus comes with clouds, and with the holy angels, may i be glad to see him. may my dear parents, and brothers, and sisters, be happy with thee for ever and ever. may all people love thee, and speak of thy goodness. hear me for christ's sake. amen. supernatural religion: an inquiry the reality of divine revelation by walter richard cassels in three volumes: vol. i. complete edition. carefully revised. london: longmans, green, and co., . pg editor's note: this file has been provided with an image of the original scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the html file. nearly every page in the text has many greek passages which have been indicated where they occur by [���] as have many complex tables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. some of the pages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is taken up with complex footnotes in english, greek and hebrew. the reader may click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page with the footnotes. �dw preface to the complete edition in preparing a complete edition of this work, i have revised it throughout. i have not hesitated to make any alterations, omissions or additions which seemed to me likely to improve it. i have endeavoured as much as possible to avoid presenting openings for side issues, and, with this object, i have softened statements which, however sustainable in themselves, might give rise to discussions apart from the direct purpose of the inquiry. wherever my argument has appeared to me either involved or insufficiently expressed i have as freely recast it as my limits permitted, and i have in several parts introduced new data discovered or elaborated since the work was first written, or which i may then have overlooked. in one instance only has any alteration been requisite which demands special mention here. since the sixth edition was published, i have been convinced that marcion's gospel was based upon our third synoptic, and i have accordingly so far modified my results. it may not be unnecessary, however, plainly to repeat that, with this exception, which is not of material consequence, my convictions not only remain fundamentally unchanged, but have been confirmed and strengthened both by thorough reconsideration of my own argument, and by careful attention to the replies made by able official apologists. as regards the philosophical and other objections to miracles, their cogency is so fully recognized that bampton lecturers and eminent churchmen practically abandon miracles as evidence, and press upon their brethren the necessity of reconstructing the christian argument the necessity of reconstruction is indeed apparent, but the materials have not yet been made manifest. meanwhile, such apologists have been forced virtually to repudiate the great christian representatives who have hitherto defended the faith. the case may fairly be considered desperate when the crew throw their officers overboard by way of lightening the ship. the historical argument is not in a better position. the learned professors and critics who have undertaken to deal with it do not even pretend, except perhaps in the case of papias, to do more than assert the anonymous use of the gospels by some of the fathers, and their consequent existence; but, if this were established, what support could that give to the record of miracles? as for papias, with his hebrew matthew and fragmentary indirect mark, even if secured as a solitary witness to the composition of two gospels, he would prove but a fatal friend to the apologetic cause. the "conclusions" have been almost entirely rewritten. this was essential to the finished work; but it was further necessary in order more adequately to convey my own views, and to withdraw expressions regarding the unknowable, hitherto used from consideration for prevalent ideas and feelings, which i now recognize to have been too definite and calculated to mislead. preface to the sixth edition. this work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but both in this country, and in america and elsewhere, it has been subjected to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of opinion, that i may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to review some of my reviewers. i must first, however, beg leave to express my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its completion. i have to thank others, who, differing totally from my conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must necessarily have offended them, and i can only say that, whilst such a course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not diminished the attention with which i have followed their arguments. there are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of argument of this work which i desire to correct. some critics have objected that, if i had succeeded in establishing the proposition advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. now i contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to completeness in dealing with the subject. the preliminary affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently incredible. the counter allegation is that, although miracles may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. it is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the evidence for the gospels which occupies the second and third parts. indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. the view i have taken is clearly supported by mr. mill. in his recently published "essays on religion," he directly replies to the question whether any evidence can suffice to prove a divine revelation, and defines what the nature and amount of that evidence must be. he shows that internal evidences, that is to say, the indications which the revelation itself is thought to furnish of its divine origin, can only be negative. the bad moral character of the doctrines of an alleged revelation, he considers, may be good reason for rejecting it, "but the excellence of their morality can never entitle us to ascribe to them a supernatural origin: for we cannot have conclusive reason for believing that the human faculties were incompetent to find out moral doctrines of which the human faculties can perceive and recognise the excellence. a revelation, therefore," he decides, "cannot be proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of supernatural facts."( ) he maintains that it is possible to prove the reality of a supernatural fact if it actually occurred; and after showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, or their antecedent incredibility, he proceeds: "against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, the positive evidences of miracles"( ) this is precisely what i have done. in order to show that mr. mill's estimate of the nature of this positive evidence for miracles does not essentially differ from the results of this work, the following lines may be quoted:� "but the evidence of miracles, at least to protestant christians, is not, in our day, of this cogent description. it is not the evidence of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. and even in the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts asserted on their alleged testimony, are not of the transcendent character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be little room for doubt. on the contrary, the recorded miracles are, in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." the second point to which i desire to refer is a statement which has frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, i endeavour to prove that the four canonical gospels were not written until the end of the second century. this error is of course closely connected with that which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how any one who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. the fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the gospels. the evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, so far from their affording {viii} sufficient testimony to warrant belief in the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and truth. this is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as evidence. in a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for the canonical gospels falls very far short even of ordinary requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of serious consideration. it has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special gospels, i admit that gospels very similar must early have been in existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief as the canonical gospels: consequently that i merely change, without shaking, the witnesses. those who advance this argument, however, totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. what such objectors urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful investigation, have written an account of them, and other {ix} persons, equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. i venture to say that no one who advances the argument to which i am referring can have realized the nature of the question at issue, and the relation of miracles to the order of nature. the last of these general objections to which i need now refer is the statement, that the difficulty with regard to the gospels commences precisely where my examination ends, and that i am bound to explain how, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as irenæus. my reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this. no one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment regard the canonical position of any gospel at the end of that century either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. that which concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but the beginning of the first century. even if we took the statements of irenæus, and later fathers like the alexandrian clement, tertullian, and origen, about the gospels, they are absolutely without value except as personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are shown. of the earlier history of those gospels there is not a distinct trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses for miracles. after having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced against this work, i venture to express strengthened conviction of the truth of its conclusions. {x} the best and most powerful reasons which able divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main argument have, i submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by inference, shown it to be unassailable. very many of those who have professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have shown that the church has no artillery capable of making a practicable breach in the rationalistic stronghold. i say this solely in reference to the argument which i have taken upon myself to represent, and in no sense of my own individual share in its maintenance. i must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and official zeal are capable. i am sincerely obliged to professor lightfoot and dr. westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my book. i had myself directly attacked the views of dr. westcott, and of course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in reply; and i am not surprised at the vigour with which dr. lightfoot has assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, although i may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. in spite of hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main argument, and i consider that every point yet objected to by dr. lightfoot, or indicated by dr. {xi} westcott, might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position. these objections, i may say, refer solely to details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may have given it a formidable appearance, and malicious effect, which render it worth while once for all to meet it in detail. the first point ( ) to which i shall refer is an elaborate argument by dr. lightfoot regarding the "silence of eusebius." ( ) i had called attention to the importance of considering the silence of the fathers, under certain conditions;( ) and i might, omitting his curious limitation, adopt dr. lightfoot's opening comment upon this as singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "in one province more especially, relating to the external evidences for the gospels, silence occupies a prominent place." dr. lightfoot proposes to interrogate this "mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous." i might again agree with him, but that unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for the gospels. such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only the eloquence of--silence. i have not yet met with the argument anywhere that, because none of the early fathers quote our canonical gospels, or say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous {xii} evidence that they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and authoritative. dr. lightfoot's argument from silence is, for the present at least, limited to eusebius. the point on which the argument turns is this: after examining the whole of the extant writings of the early fathers, and finding them a complete blank as regards the canonical gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal works and other indications they are not evidence against them, i supplement this, in the case of hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, by the inference that, as eusebius does not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the gospels, they actually did not contain any. but before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main argument of my work. the evident labour which professor lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. dr. lightfoot says, after quoting the passages in which i appeal to the silence of eusebius: "this indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces, if this basis should prove to be unsound. a wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he piled up his fabric to this height. this our author has altogether neglected to do." ( ) towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says: {xiii} "if they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in 'supernatural religion' has crumbled to pieces." ( ) i do not doubt that dr. lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the representations made in the above passages are a very strange exaggeration. i am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and strength in attacking points to which i attach no importance whatever, and which in themselves have scarcely any value. when writers, after an amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, proved that i have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it was. now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument which is based upon the silence of eusebius is an inference regarding some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be withdrawn without affecting the case. the object of my investigation is to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers regarding our gospels. in the fragments which remain of the works of three writers, hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, i do not find any evidence of acquaintance with these gospels,--the works mentioned by papias being, i contend, different from the existing gospels attributed to matthew and mark. whether i am right or not in this does not affect the present discussion. it is an unquestioned fact that eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these {xiv} writers contained any reference to, or information about, the gospels, nor have we any statement from any other author to that effect. the objection of dr. lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of eusebius warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was the purpose of eusebius to record. to give dr. lightfoot's statements, which i am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose that i abandon eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? simply as complete as it well could be: hegesippus, papias, and dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the gospels. the reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement dr. lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of "supernatural religion" would be affected even if he established much more than he has attempted to do. we may now proceed to consider dr. lightfoot's argument itself. he carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared intention of eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of the fathers, and in order to do him full justice i will quote his words, merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his statement into three paragraphs. he says: "eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings in two different ways. this is the cardinal point of the passage. {xv} ( ) of the antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class [--greek--]; ( ) but as regards the undisputed canonical books he only professes to mention them, when such a writer has something to tell about them [--greek--]. any anecdote of interest respecting them, as also respecting the others [--greek--], will be recorded. ( ) but in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will allude to mere quotations however numerous and however precise."( ) in order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we can differ, i will first refer to the third. did eusebius intend to point out mere quotations of the books which he considered undisputed"? as a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in the case of the st epistle of peter and st epistle of john, which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be undisputed.( ) this is admitted by dr. lightfoot. that he omitted to mention a reference to the epistle to the corinthians in the epistle of clement of rome, or the reference by theophilus to the gospel of john, and other supposed quotations, might be set down as much to oversight as intention. on the other hand, that he did mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. although much might be said upon this point, therefore, i consider it of so little importance that i do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing it. if my assertions with regard to the silence of eusebius likewise include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very subsidiary testimony that i i regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (s. r., i. p. ) should have misled, and given dr. lightfoot much trouble. i used the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the epistle of peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in polycarp. i trust that in this edition i have made my meaning clear. {xvi} should have no reluctance in waiving it altogether. even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. in the evidential destitution of the gospels, apologists would thankfully have received even such vague indications, indeed there is scarcely any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to establish the reality of miracles and divine revelation. if this point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position? we are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the gospels in the works of hegesippus, papias, and dionysius of corinth, because eusebius does not record them; but, on the other hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. the only inference which i care to draw from the silence of eusebius is precisely that which dr. lightfoot admits that, both from his promise and practice, i am entitled to deduce: when any ancient writer "has something to _tell about_" the gospels, "any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them," eusebius will record it. this is the only information of the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these writers. so far, therefore, from producing the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of "supernatural religion," upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself, dr. lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner. {xvii} before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the fathers have to tell about the gospels. i may mention, in the first place, that eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the gospels and other canonical works.( ) upon two occasions he quotes the account which clement of alexandria gives of the composition of mark's gospel, and also cites his statements regarding the other gospels.( ) in like manner he records the information, such as it is, which irenæus has to impart about the four gospels and other works,( ) and what origen has to say concerning them.( ) interrogating extant works, we find in fact that eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or interesting regarding these books from early writers. dr. lightfoot says that eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the case of irenæus. he says: "though he (eusebius) gives the principal passage in this author relating to the four gospels (irenæus, ady. iler. iii. , ) he omits to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the question, e.g. that st. john wrote his gospel to counteract the errors of cerinthus and the nicolaitans (irenæus, adv. hær. iii. , )." i must explain, however, that the "interesting statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground eusebius may well have passed it over. dr. lightfoot farther says: "thus too when he quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the asiatic elders who were acquainted with st. john,( ) he omits the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important bearing on the authenticity of the fourth gospel, for it declared that christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus confirming the obvious chronology of the fourth gospel against the apparent chronology of the synoptists."( ) nothing, however, could be further from the desire or intention of eusebius than to represent any discordance between the gospels, or to support the one at the expense of the others. on the contrary, he enters into an elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three synoptists only to write the doings of the lord for one year after {xviii} the imprisonment of john the baptist, and that john, having the other gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not embraced by the other evangelists.( ) moreover, the extraordinary assertions of irenæus not only contradict the synoptics, but also the fourth gospel, and eusebius certainly could not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although irenæus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the presbyters who were acquainted with john. it being then admitted that eusebius not only pledges himself to record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us sec the conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three writers with regard to whom i have inferred anything from the "silence of eusebius." i need scarcely repeat that eusebius held hegesippus in very high estimation. he refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. eusebius quotes from the work of hegesippus a very long account of the martyrdom of james;( ) he refers to hegesippus as his authority for the statement that simeon was a cousin [--greek--] of jesus, cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of joseph;( ) he confirms a passage in the epistle of clement by reference to hegesippus;( ) he quotes from hegesippus a story regarding some members of the family of jesus, of the race of david, who were brought before domitian;( ) he cites his narrative of the martyrdom of simeon, together with other matters concerning the early church;( ) in another place he gives a laudatory account of hegesippus and his writings;( ) shortly after, he refers to the {xix} statement of hegesippus that he was in rome until the episcopate of eleutherus,( ) and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions his observation on the epistle of clement, and quotes his remarks about the church in corinth, the succession of roman bishops, the general state of the church, the rise of heresies, and other matters.( ) i mention these numerous references to hegesippus as i have noticed them in turning over the pages of eusebius, but others may very probably have escaped me. eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were used by hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these was the gospel according to the hebrews. he does not, however, record a single remark of any kind regarding our gospels, and the legitimate inference, and it is the only one i care to draw, is, that hegesippus did not say anything about them. i may simply add that, as eusebius quotes the account of matthew and mark from papias, a man of whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in confirmation of the statement of the alexandrian clement regarding the composition of mark's gospel,( ) it would be against all reason, as well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted, and of whom he speaks with so much respect. i have said that eusebius would more particularly have quoted anything with regard to the fourth gospel, and for those who care to go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. no one can read eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care with which he speaks of john and his writings, and the substantially apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. apart from any doubts expressed {xx} regarding the gospel itself, the controversy as to the authenticity of the apocalypse and second and third epistles called by his name, with which eusebius was so well acquainted, and the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same john having written both the gospel and apocalypse, regarding which he so fully quotes the argument of dionysius of alexandria,( ) evidently made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to the fourth gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of the essential difference between that work and the three synoptics. the first occasion on which he speaks of john, he records the tradition that he was banished to patmos during the persecution under domitian, and refers to the apocalypse. he quotes irenæus in support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the close of domitian's reign.( ) he goes on to speak of the persecution under domitian, and quotes hegesippus as to a command given by that emperor to slay all the posterity of david,( ) as also tertullian's account,( ) winding up his extracts from the historians of the time by the statement that, after nerva succeeded domitian, and the senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the latter, the apostle john returned from exile in patmos and, according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at ephesus.( ) he states that john, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist, governed the churches of asia after the death of domitian and his return from patmos, and that he was still living when trajan succeeded nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from iremeus and clement of alexandria.( ) he then gives an account of the writings of john, and whilst asserting that the gospel must be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he gives an elaborate description. it is not necessary to quote his account of the fourth gospel and of the occasion of its composition, which he states to have been john's receiving the other three gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did not contain a narrative of the earlier history of christ. for this reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings of jesus before the baptist was cast into prison. after some very extraordinary reasoning, eusebius says that no one who carefully considers the points he mentions can think that the gospels are at variance with each other, and he conjectures that john probably omitted the genealogies because matthew and luke had given them.( ) without further anticipating what i have to say when speaking of papias, it is clear, i think, that eusebius, being aware of, and interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings attributed to john, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities, would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any information on the subject given by hegesippus, whom he so frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any. {xxi} in regard to papias the case is still clearer. we find that eusebius quotes his account of the composition of gospels by matthew and mark,( ) although he had already given a closely similar narrative regarding mark from clement of alexandria, and appealed to papias in confirmation of it. is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had papias known anything of the other two gospels, he would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded their information? and is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth gospels, eusebius would have omitted to quote it? certainly not; and dr. lightfoot's article proves it. eusebius had not only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case which we can test, but he fulfils it by actually quoting what papias had to say about the gospels. even if he had been careless, his very reference to the first two gospels must have reminded him of the claims of the rest. there are, however, special reasons which render it still more certain that had papias had anything to tell about the fourth gospel,--and if there was a fourth gospel in his knowledge he must have had something to tell about it,--eusebius would have recorded it. the first quotation which he makes from papias is the passage in which the bishop of hierapolis states the interest with which he had inquired about the words of the presbyters, "what john or matthew or what any other of the disciples of the lord said, and what aristion and the presbyter john, disciples of the lord, i am much obliged to dr. lightfoot for calling my attention to the accidental insertion of the words "and the apocalypse" (s. e. i. p. ). this was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. vol. i. {xxii} say."(l) eusebius observes, and particularly points out, that the name of john is twice mentioned in the passage, the former, mentioned with peter, james, and matthew, and other apostles, evidently being, he thinks, the evangelist, and the latter being clearly distinguished by the designation of presbyter. eusebius states that this proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of john in asia, and that two tombs were still shown at ephesus bearing the name of john. eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second of the two johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the revelation. what an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the subject from papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted with both! his attention is so pointedly turned to john at the very moment when he makes his quotations regarding matthew and mark, that i am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of dr. lightfoot and the peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of eusebius proves that papias said nothing about either the third or fourth gospels. i need not go on to discuss dionysius of corinth, for the same reasoning equally applies to his case. i have, therefore, only a very few more words to say on the subject of eusebius. not content with what he intended to be destructive criticism, dr. lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following statement, which he prints in italics: _"the silence of eusebius_ respecting early witnesses to the fourth gospel is an evidence in its favour."( ) now, interpreted even by the rules laid down (xxiii) by dr. lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? it means, not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are witnesses about anything connected with the fourth gospel, but simply that if eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that gospel by any one, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does not undertake to mention. the value of his opinion at so late a date is very small. professor lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection with "the ignatian epistles,"( ) which is equally abortive and limited to details. i do not intend to complain of the spirit in which the article is written, nor of its unfairness. on the whole i think that readers may safely be left to judge of the tone in which a controversy is carried on. unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of mis-statement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. it is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. now in a work like this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it is not possible altogether to escape errors. a critic or opponent is of course entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even alive to his own interests, i scarcely think that he will do so in a spirit of unfair detraction. but in doing this a writer is bound to be accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations {xxiv} and it can be shown that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon himself. i propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to all such attacks, to follow professor lightfoot and dr. westcott with some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the ignatian epistles, and once for all to show the grave mis-statements to which they commit themselves. dr. lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. he says: "the ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student of earlier christian history. the literature is voluminous; the considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. a writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of familiarity with this subject but in this case the reader naturally expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with some diffidence."( ) my critic objects that i express my opinions with decision. i shall hereafter justify this decision, but i would here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for dr. lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question make it easy for me. it requires but little logical perception to recognize that epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the gospels. the statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, and war is declared in the following terms:-- {xxv} "the reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon it. it becomes important therefore to inquire whether the writer shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his arguments."(l) this sentence shows the scope of the discussion. my dicta, however, play a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to them, and i have never desired that any should be, my argument would not be in the least degree affected. the first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is one of mere critical history. i wrote: "the strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led ( ) the majority of critics to recognize the syriac version as the most genuine form of the letters of ignatius extant, and ( ) this is admitted by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the epistles."( ) upon this dr. lightfoot remarks:-- "no statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results of the ignatian controversy since the publication of the syriac epistles than this."( ) it will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one who is preaching "diffidence." when we come to details, however, dr. lightfoot admits: "those who maintain the genuineness of the ignatian epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." he seems to consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or six critics on either side; but even {xxvi} on this modified interpretation of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. to the five names quoted as recognizing the priority of the syriac epistles may be added those of milman, böhringer, de pressensé, and dr. tregelles, which immediately occur to me. but i must ask upon what ground he limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? i certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the three curetonian epistles, and that this majority is made up partly of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still consider the syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the epistles. this will be evident to any one who reads the context. with regard to the latter ( ) part of the sentence, i will at once say that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which i correct in this edition. many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity prefer the curetonian version. the tubingen school are not unanimous on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. bleek, for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the priority of the curetonian "im höchsten grade wahrscheinlich.,, volkmar, lipsius, and rumpf prefer them. dr. light-foot says:-- "the case of lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this point. having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of the curetonian letters, he has lately, if i rightly understand him, retracted his former opinion on both questions alike."( ) dr. lightfoot, however, has not rightly understood him. lipsius has only withdrawn his opinion that the syriac letters are authentic, but whilst now asserting that in all their forms the ignatian epistles are spurious, he still {xxvii} maintains the priority of the curetonian version. he first announced this change of view emphatically in , when he added: "an dem relativ grossern alter der syrischen textgestalt gegenuber der kürzeren griechischen halte ich ubrigens nach wie vor fest"( ) in the very paper to which dr. lightfoot refers lipsius also again says quite distinctly: "ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der syrer in zahlreichen fallen den relativ ursprünglichsten text bewahrt hat (vgl. meine nachweise in niedner's zeitschr. s. fl)."( ) with regard to the whole of this ( ) point, it must be remembered that the only matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny the authenticity of the ignatian epistles in all forms. dr. lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light on this point" by analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject given in an earlier passage."( ) the "light" which he throws seems to pass through so peculiar a medium, that i should be much rather tempted to call it darkness. i beg the reader to favour me with his attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error and misrepresentation. the general statement referred to and quoted is as follows:-- "those three syriac epistles hive been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic epistles of ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.( ) as early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity {xxviii} of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius. the magdeburg centuriators first attacked them, and calvin declared (p. ) them to be spurious,( ) an opinion fully shared by chemnitz, dallseus, and others, and similar doubts, more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century,( ) and onward to comparatively recent times,( ) although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. that the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions.( )"( ) in the first note ( ) on p. i referred to bunsen, bleek, böhringer, cureton, ewald, lipsius, milman, ritschl, and weiss, and dr. lightfoot proceeds to analyze my statements as follows: and i at once put his explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both to call more immediate attention to the point:-- the text. many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic epistles of ignatius, whilst others who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.( ) dr. lightfoot's statement. "these references, it will be observed, are given to illustrate more immediately, though perhaps not solely, the statement that writers 'who do not admit that even these (the curetonian epistles) are genuine letters emanating from ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.'"( ) it must be evident to any one who reads the context( ) that in this sentence i am stating opinions expressed in favour of the curetonian epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or {xxix} merely the relative priority. dr. lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws light" upon the point by the following remarks:-- dr. lightfoot's statement: "the reader, therefore, will hardly be prepared to hear that not one of these nine writers condemns the ignatian letters as spurious. bleek alone leaves the matter in some uncertainty while inclining to bunsen's view; the other eight distinctly maintain the genuineness of the curetonian letters."' the truth: cureton, bunsen, böhringer, ewald, milman, ritschl, and weiss maintain both the priority and genuineness of the syriac epistles. bleek will not commit himself to a distinct recognition of the letters in any form. of the vossian epistles, he says: "aber auch die echtheit dieser recension ist keineswegs sicher." he considers the priority of the curetonian "in the highest degree probable." lipsius rejects all the epistles, as i have already said, but maintains the priority of the syriac. dr. lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct. continuing his analysis, dr. lightfoot fights almost every inch of the ground in the very same style. he cannot contradict my statement that so early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed "contemporary beview," february, , p. . in a note dr. lightfoot states that my references to lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the curetonian epistles. certainly they are so, but in the right place, two pages farther on, i refer to the writings in which he rejects the authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority of these letters {xxx} to ignatius, and that the magdeburg centuriators attacked them, and calvin declared them to be spurious,( ) but dr. lightfoot says: "the criticisms of calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the long recension alone."( ) of course only the long recension was at that time known. rivet replies to campianus that calvin's objections were not against ignatius but the jesuits who had corrupted him.( ) this is the usual retort theological, but as i have quoted the words of calvin the reader may judge for himself. dr. lightfoot then says: "the clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. chemnitz did not folly share the opinion that they were spurious; on the contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen the position of the papal power, do.' "( ) pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these epistles as evidence. in treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts of them with respect, chemnitz does nothing more than the magdeburg centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing them to ignatius himself. the epistles in the "long recension" were before chemnitz both in the latin and greek forms. he says of them: ".... et multas habent non contemnendas sententias, presertim sicut graece leguntur. admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non referunt gravitatem apostolicam. calvin's expressions are: nihil moniis illis, quro sub ignatii nomine editae sunt, putidius. quo minus tolerabilis est eorum impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt. inst. chr. bel. i. , p . {xxxi} adulteratas enim jam esse illas epistolas, vel inde colligitur." he then shows that quotations in ancient writers purporting to be taken from the epistles of ignatius are not found in these extant epistles at all, and says: "de epistolis igitur illis ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: transformatse enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum regni pontificii."(l) even when he speaks in favour of them he "damns them with faint praise." the whole of the discussion turns upon the word "fully", and is an instance of the minute criticism of my critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with chemnitz. a shade more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. dr. lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and here again i must closely follow him. my note ( ) p. reads as follows:-- " by bochartus, aubertin, blondel, basnage, casaubon, cocus, humfrey, rivetus, salmasius, socinus (faustus), parker, petau, &c; &c.; cf. jacobson, patr. apost., i. p. jolt.; cureton vindiciæ ignatianæ, , appendix." upon this dr. lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks: "but the most important point of all is the purpose for which they are quoted. 'similar doubts' could only, i think, be interpreted from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius.'"( ) as dr. lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognizes what is "the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he persistently ignores my {xxxii} very careful definition of "the purpose for which they are quoted." it is difficult, without entering into minute classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course of critical judgment. desirous, therefore, of embracing a large class,--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, illustrate the same statement in the text,--and not to overstate the case on my own side, i used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did not fully accept them. i said, then, in guarded terms,--and i italicise the part which dr. lightfoot chooses to suppress,--that "similar _doubts, more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to. dr. lightfoot admits that bochart directly condemns one epistle, and would probably have condemned the rest also; that aubertin, blondel, basnage, r. parker, and saumaise actually rejected all; and that cook pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." so far, therefore, there can be no dispute. i will now take the rest in succession. dr. lightfoot says that humfrey "considers that they have been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the main." dr. google has so completely warped the statement in the text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of the epistles in the note, but had i intended to say that humfrey and all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the epistles i should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed "doubts more or less definite," which humfrey does. dr. lightfoot says that socinus "denounces corruptions and {xxxiii} anachronisms, but so far as i can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." his very denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more or less definite." "casaubon, so far from rejecting them altogether," dr. lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the epistles with new arguments." but i have never affirmed that he "rejected them altogether." casaubon died before he fulfilled the promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he might have used. i must point out, however, that the antiquity does not necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. with regard to rivet the case is different i had overlooked the fact that in a subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving archbishop ushers edition of the short recension, he had given his adhesion to "that form of the epistles."( ) this fact is also mentioned by pearson, and i ought to have observed it.( ) petau, the last of the writers referred to, says: "equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: turn aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab ignatio epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." he then goes on to mention the recent publication of the vossian epistles and the version of usher, and the learned jesuit father has no more decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio sit, illas esse genuinas ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit"( ) the next note ( ), p. , was only separated from the {xxxiv} preceding for convenience of reference, and dr. lightfoot quotes and comments upon it as follows: "the next note, p. , is as follows:--(see scanned page. ed.) the brackets are not the author's, but my own. this is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have made such a deep impression on the reviewers. certainly, as it stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the by-paths of the ignatian literature, and seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading. it is important to observe, however, that every one of these references, except those which i have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to cureton's _vindicia ignatianæ_, where the passages are quoted in full. thus two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten minutes. our author has here and there transposed the order of the quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in cureton. but what purpose was served by thus importing into his notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? and, if he thought fit to do so, why was the key-reference to cureton buried among the rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional references on which it has no bearing?"( ) i do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is here advanced as an important {xxxv} point to observe, but i call attention to the unfair spirit in which dr. lightfoot's criticisms are made. i ask every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references in a note are also given by cureton, i simply took them from him, and thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references," and further to insinuate that i "here and there transposed the order" apparently to conceal the source? this is a kind of criticism which i very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and reverend opponent. now, as full quotations are given in cureton's appendix, i should have been perfectly entitled to take references from it, had i pleased, and for the convenience of many readers i distinctly indicate cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. the fact is, however, that i did not take the references from cureton, but in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note "seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly does not misrepresent the fact, for i took the trouble to make myself acquainted with the "by-paths of ignatian literature." now in analysing the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_" continued to be expressed regarding the ignatian epistles. i am much obliged to dr. lightfoot for drawing my attention to wotton. his name is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and was by mistake included in it. i also frankly give up weismann, whose doubts i find i had exaggerated, and proceed to examine dr. lightfoot's further statements. he says that thiersch {xxxvi} uses the curetonian as genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the vossian. thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the seven or the three epistles as genuine. he says distinctly: "these three syriac epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes found in the same ms. seem to be excerpts. but on the other hand, the doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven epistles, in the form in which they are known since usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. for no ms. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven epistles attested by eusebius, a ms. such as lay before eusebius."( ) thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." dr. light-foot then continues: "of the rest a considerable number, as, for instance, lardner, beausobre, schroeckh, griesbach, kestner, neander, and baumgarten-crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus."( ) the words which i have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my words descriptive of the doubts entertained. i must point out that a leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or less definite_," which is all i quote them for. i will take each name in order. _lardner_ says: "but whether the smaller (vossian epistles) themselves are the genuine writings of ignatius, bishop of antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. and whatever positiveness some may have {xxxvii} shown on either side, i must own i have found it a very difficult question." the opinion which he expresses finally is merely: "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main_ the genuine epistles of ignatius." _beausobre_ says: "je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l'authenticite' des _lettres de st. ignace_. si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été inter-poises." _schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for the shorter (vossian) epistles "many doubts arise which make them suspicious." he proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of ignatius are interpolations of a later time. he concludes with the pertinent observation: "however probable this is, it nevertheless remains as difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." in fact it would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the epistles. _grtesbach_ and _kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite," but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy too much space. _neander_.--dr. lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from the english translation of the first {xxxviii} edition of neander's history given by cureton in his appendix, has not attended to the brief german quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing "in favour of a genuine nucleus," neander might well have been classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the ignatian epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who merely express doubt. neander says: "as the account of the martyrdom of ignatius is very suspicious, so also the epistles which suppose the correctness of this suspicious legend, do not bear throughout the impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who is addressing his last words to the communities. a hierarchical purpose is not to be mistaken." in an earlier part of the work he still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called ignatian epistles," he recognizes a decided "design" (absichtlichkeit) and then he continues: "as the tradition regarding the journey of ignatius to rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his epistles, which pre-suppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me with faith in their authenticity." he goes on to state additional grounds for disbelief. _baumgarten-crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the extant may have formed part of the original epistles, and in a note he excepts only the passages quoted by the fathers. {xxxix} he seems to agree with semler and others that the two recensions are probably the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic interest. some years later he remarked that inquiries into the epistles, although not yet concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the shorter recension was more original than the long, but that even the shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations (ueberarbeitungen) from interpolations. this very cautious statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material of the letters cannot be ascertained. dr. lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous. dr. lightfoot doubts, and a large mass of critics recognize _that the authenticity of none_ of these epistles _can be established_ and that they can only be considered later and spurious compositions." he proceeds to the next "note ( )" with the same unhesitating vigour, and characterizes it as "equally unfortunate." wherever it has been possible, dr. light-foot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" of my notes, although he has recognized how important it is to ascertain this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. i will put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement which he altogether disregards:-- "further examination and more references to twenty authorities comprehensive knowledge of the are then given, as belonging to the subject have confirmed earlier a large mass of critics who recognize {xl} that the ignatian epistles, 'can only be considered later and spurious compositions.'"( ) there are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively pronounces them to be spurious. out of the twenty authorities referred to, dr. lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming what he states to be the purpose of the note. he seems to consider that a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot be defined invalidates my reference. i maintain, however, that it does not. it is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the extant, letters cannot be established without denying that there may have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may have been based. i will analyse the six references. bleek.--dr. lightfoot says: "of these bleek (already cited in a previous note) expresses no definite opinion." dr. lightfoot omits to mention that i do not refer to bleek directly, but by "cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. i have already partly stated bleek's view. after pointing out some difficulties, he says generally: "it comes to this, that the origin of the ignatian epistles themselves is still very doubtful." he refuses {xli} to make use of a passage because it is only found in the long recension, and another which occurs in the shorter recension he does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "the authenticity of this recension also is by no means certain," and, next, the cureton epistles discredit the others. "whether this recension (the curetonian) is more original than the shorter greek is certainly not altogether certain, but.... in the highest degree probable." in another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences in the "ignatian epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these ignatian epistles themselves, in the different recensions in which we possess them."( ) in fact he did not consider that their authenticity could be established. i do not, however, include him here at all. _gfrörer_.--dr. lightfoot, again, omits to state that i do not cite this writer like the others, but by a "cf." merely suggest a reference to his remarks. _harless_, according to dr. lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly reject with the most considerable critics of older and more recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that the epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a passage as genuine because it stands in the vossian letters as well as in the long recension." this is a mistake. harless quotes a passage in connection with paul's epistle to the ephesians with the distinct remark: "in this case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the recensions is in {xlii} part removed through the circumstance that both recensions have the passage." he recognizes that the completeness of the proof that ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of marcion is somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of ignatius. he did not in fact venture to consider the ignatian epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century. _schliemann_, dr. lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies oblige him to recognize a genuine substratum,' though he is not satisfied with either existing recension." now what schliemann says is this: "certainly neither the shorter and still less the longer recension in which we possess these epistles can lay claim to authenticity. only if we must, nevertheless, without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. in a note he adds: "the external testimonies oblige me to recognize a genuine substratum--poly-carp already speaks of the same in ch. xiii. of his epistle. but that in their present form they do not proceed from ignatius the contents sufficiently show." _hase_, according to dr. lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion." if he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what that opinion is with sufficient clearness. the long recension, he says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion of an invention in favour of episcopacy, and the shorter text is not fully attested either. the curetonian epistles with the shortest and least hierarchical text give the impression of being an epitome. "but {xliii} even if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these epistles, yet they would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the second century." these last words are a clear admission of his opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. _lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in favour of the authenticity of the epistles in the shorter recension, but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been able to shake off. he proceeds to point out their internal improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed journey, which make it "still more improbable that ignatius himself can really have written these epistles in this situation." lechler does not consider that the curetonian epistles strengthen the case; and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the inauthenticity of the ignatian epistles, he at least very clearly justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be established. now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon my notes? out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of christian literature, it appears that--much to my regret--i have inserted one name totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been removed by the subsequent publication of the short recension and consequently {xliv} erroneously classed him, and i withdraw a third whose doubts i consider that i have overrated. mistakes to this extent in dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly expressed, may, i hope, be excusable, and i can only say that i am only too glad to correct such errors. on the other hand, a critic who attacks such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of "misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and i have shown that dr. lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, but unfair in his statements of my purpose. i am happy, however, to be able to make use of his own words and say: "i may perhaps have fallen into some errors of detail, though i have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main conclusions are, i believe, irrefragable."(l) there are further misstatements made by dr. lightfoot to which i must briefly refer before turning to other matters. he says, with unhesitating boldness:-- one highly important omission is significant. there is no mention, from first to last, of the armenian version. now it happens that this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has raged fiercely since its publication_. one who (like our author) maintains the priority of the curetonian letters, was especially bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most formidable argument to his opponents. this version was given to the world by petermann in , the same year in which cureton's later work, the _corpus ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown to him. its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the ignatian question during the last quarter of a century. this is true of lipsius and weiss and hilgenfeld and uhlhom, whom he cites, not less than of merx and denzinger and zahn, whom he neglects to cite_. now first as regards the facts. i do not maintain the "contemporary review," february, , p. . {xlv} priority of the curetonian epistles in this book myself, indeed i express no personal opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my diffident critic, that the epistles in no form have "any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, even if they have any value at all." i merely represent the opinion of others regarding those epistles. dr. lightfoot very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the armenian version, and i call special attention to the passages in the above quotation which i have taken the liberty of italicising. i venture to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and as dr. lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, i will state how the case stands with regard to them. weiss, lipsius, uhlhorn, merx, and zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. denzinger, however, only refers to petermann's publication, which appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the ignatian question, two years after,( ) he does not even allude to the armenian version. beyond the barest historical reference to petermann's work, hilgenfeld does not discuss the armenian version at all so much for the writers actually mentioned by dr. lightfoot. as for "the writers who have specially discussed the ignatian question during the last quarter of a century": cureton apparently did not think it worth while to add anything regarding the armenian version of petermann {xlvi} after its appearance; bunsen refutes petermann's arguments in a few pages of his "hippolytus";( ) baur, who wrote against bunsen and the curetonian letters, and, according to dr. lightfoot's representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even allude to the armenian epistles; ewald, in a note of a couple of lines,( ) refers to petermann's epistles as identical with a post-eusebian manipulated form of the epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his text; dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them;( ) hefele( ) supports them at somewhat greater length; but bleek, volkmar, tischendorf, bohringer, scholten, and others have not thought them worthy of special notice, at any rate none of these nor any other writers of any weight have, so far as i am aware, introduced them into the controversy at all. the argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to introduce into a discussion already too long and complicated, and i refer the reader to bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, i may quote the following lines: "but it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the seven letters in armenian, and i maintain, they prove that coreton's text is an incomplete extract, because, i think, i have found some syriac idioms in the armenian text! well, if that is not a joke, it simply proves, according to ordinary logic, that the seven letters must have once been translated into syriac. but how can it prove that the greek original of {xlvii} this supposed syriac version is the genuine text, and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" (l) dr. lightfoot blames me for omitting to introduce this argument, on the ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital problem of which it was bound to give an account" now all this is sheer misrepresentation. i do not assume the priority of the curetonian epistles, and i examine all the passages contained in the seven greek epistles which have any bearing upon our gospels. passing on to another point, i say: "seven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally purporting to be by ignatius, simply because only that number were mentioned by eusebius."( ) another passage is also quoted by dr. lightfoot, which will be found a little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. upon this he writes as follows: this attempt to confound the seven epistles mentioned by eusebius with the other confessedly spurious epistles, as if they presented themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the important facts bearing on the question. ( ). theodoret, a century after eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other epistles, and there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. ( ). the confessedly spurious epistles differ widely in style from the seven epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven epistles. in other words, they clearly formed part of the long recension in the first instance. ( ). they abound in anachronisms which point to an age later than eusebius, as the date of their composition.( ) although i do not really say in the above that no other pleas are advanced in favour of the seven epistles, {xlviii} i contend that, reduced to its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, if not altogether, upon their mention by eusebius. the very first reason ( ) advanced by dr. lightfoot to refute me is a practical admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight epistles are put out of court because even theodoret, a century after eusebius, does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of eusebius," the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely receives some increase of significance from the silence of theodoret. suppose, however, that eusebius had referred to any of them, how changed their position would have been! the epistles referred to would have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has conferred upon the rest the fact is, moreover, that, throughout the controversy, the two divisions of epistles are commonly designated the "prae-" and "post-eusebian," making him the turning-point of the controversy. indeed, further on, dr. lightfoot himself admits: "the testimony of eusebius first differentiates them."( ) the argument ( and ) that the eight rejected epistles betray anachronisms and interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the vossian epistles. the fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second paragraph quoted by dr. lightfoot, to which i refer above, and which i have reserved till now as it requires more detailed notice. it is this: "it is a total mistake to suppose that the seven epistles mentioned by eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. these epistles are mixed up in the medicean and corresponding ancient latin mss. with the other eight epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour."( ) {xlix} i will at once give dr. lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and orthodoxy--dr. tregelles: dr. lightfoot. ( ). "it is not strictly true that the seven epistles are mixed up with the confessedly spurious epistles. in the greek and latin mss., as also in the armenian version, the spurious epistles come after the others; and this circumstance, combined with the facts already mentioned, plainly shows that they were a later addition, borrowed from the long recension to complete the body of ignatian letters."( ) dr. tregelles. "it is a mistake to speak of seven ignatian epistles in greek having been transmitted to us, for no such seven exist, except through their having been selected by editors from the medicean ms. which contains so much that is confessedly spurious;--a fact which some who imagine a diplomatic transmission of seven have overlooked."( ) i will further quote the words of cureton, for as dr. lightfoot advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own statement cureton says: "again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the epistles of st. ignatius, as exhibited in the medicean ms., and in the ancient latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the epistles presumed to be the genuine production of that holy martyr are mixed up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. both in the greek and latin mss. all these are placed upon the same footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only ground which has hitherto been a note to "home's int. to the holy scriptures," th ed., , iv. p. , note . the italics are in the original. "contemporary beview," february, , p. . dr. lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "the roman epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is embedded in the martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the latin version, where doubtless it stood also in the greek, before the ms. of this latter was mutilated. otherwise the vossian epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious epistles in the greek and latin mss. in the armenian all the vossian epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious epistles follow. see zahn, ignatius von antiochien, p. ." {l} assumed for their separation has been the specification of some of them by eusebius and his omission of any mention of the others."' "the external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour of the rejected greek epistles, with the exception of that to the philip-pians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which have been received.' they are found in all the manuscripts, both greek and latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two distinct and very different recensions, if we except the epistle to polycarp, in which the variations are very few. of these two recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its reception; and the text of the medicean codex and of the two copies of the corresponding latin version belonging to cains college, cambridge, and corpus christi college, oxford, has been adopted.... in all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the former and latter epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of the greek recension or the translator of the latin version esteemed one to be better or more genuine than another. nor can any prejudice result to the epistles to the tarsians, to the antiochians, and to hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological order, and rank after the rest as having been written from philippi, at which place ignatius is said to have arrived after he had despatched the previous letters. so far, therefore, as the evidence of all the existing copies, latin as well as greek, of both the recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the rejected epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." ( ) proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, i will very briefly show the order in which these epistles have been found in some of the principal mss. one of the earliest published was the ancient latin version of eleven epistles edited by j. faber stapulensis in , which was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined table i shall mark a,( ) and which also exhibits the order of cod. vat , assigned to the eleventh century.( ) the next (b) is a greek ms. edited by valentinus pacæus in ,( ) and the order at {li} the same time represents that of the cod. pal. .( ) the third (c) is the ancient latin translation, referred to above, published by archbishop usher.( ) the fourth (d) is the celebrated medicean ms. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by vossiusin .( ) this also represents the order of the cod. casanatensis g. v. .( ) i italicise the rejected epistles: (see scanned page in the html file, ed.) i have given the order in mss. containing the "long recension" as well as the vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have an undeniable bearing upon this question. taking the vossian ms., it is obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and the spurious, it contains {lii} three of the false epistles, and _does not contain the so-called genuine epistle to the romans at all_. the epistle to the romans, in fact, is, to use dr. lightfoot's own expression, "embedded in the martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the epistles. this circumstance alone would justify the assertion which dr. lightfoot contradicts. i must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn for a short time to consider objections raised by dr. westcott. whilst i have to thank him for greater courtesy, i regret that i must point out serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my references which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. before proceeding to them i may make one or two general observations. dr. westcott says: "i may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics are on one side. the questions to be discussed must be decided by evidence and by argument and not by authority."( ) now the fact is that hitherto, in england, argument and evidence have almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted reverence. the orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of little more than a passing word of pious indignation. at the same time, therefore, that i endeavour, to {liii} the best of my ability, to decide these questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical authority, i refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to works where they may find them dis-. cussed. i must be permitted to add, that i do not consider i uselessly burden my pages by references to critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and recognize that belief is not so easy and matter of course a thing as they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as english divines have often seemed to represent it dr. westcott, however, omits to state that i as persistently refer to writers who oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions. dr. westcott proceeds to make the accusation which i now desire to investigate. he says: "writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. and more than this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. one example will show that i do not speak too strongly."(l) dr. westcott has scrutinized this work with great minuteness, and, as i shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. the idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by a single instance is somewhat startling, but to insinuate that a supposed contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he does, if i rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely worthy of dr. westcott, although i am sure he does not mean to be unfair. the example selected is as follows: "it has been demonstrated that ignatius was not sent to rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in antioch itself on the ()th december, a.d. {liv} when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on the th of that month. "' the references in support of these statements are the following: baur, urspr. d. epiec.tub. zeitschr. f.theol. , h. , p. anm.; bretschneider, probabilia, &c, p. ; bleek, einl.n. t., p. ; guericke, h*bucht kt #., i p. ; hagenbach, k. g., i. p. f.; davidson, introd. n. t.,i. p. ; mayerhoff, eitll. petr. schr., p. ; scholten, die sit. zeugnisse, p. , p. f.; volkmar, der ursprung, p. ; r'buch einl. apocr., i. p. f., p. . volkmar, wuch einl. apocr., i. p. ff., f.; der ursprung, p. ff.; baur, ursp. d. episc. tub. zeitschr. f. th. , h. , p. f.; gesch. chr. kirehe, , i. p. , anm. .; davidson, introd. n. t., lp. ; scholten, die hit. zeugnisse, p. f.; cf. francke, zur gesch. trojans, u. s. w. , p. f.; hilgenfeld, die ap. vster, p. . upon this dr. westcott remarks: "such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are quoted twice over emphasizes the implied precision of their testimony as to the two points affirmed." dr. westcott, however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note being absent from note , other names being inserted in the latter which do not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed being significantly varied. for instance, in note the reference to volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note ; whilst a similar transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations in the pages. the references in note , in fact, are given for the date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note , placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is {lv} made. i must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but which i regret may have misled dr. westcott in regard to note , although it does not affect note . headers are probably aware that there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of ignatius. i have in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my omission in this instance is, i think, the only exception in the book. the fact is, that i had originally in the text the words which i now add to the note: "the martyrdom has been variously dated about a.d. , or a.d. - , but whether assigning the event to home or to antioch a majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later date." thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the text with this, i removed it with the design of putting the statement at the head of note , with reference to "a.d. " in the text, but unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of this intention, as well.as the addition of some fuller references to the writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite regret, was overlooked. the whole of the authorities in note , therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which i really referred to them. with this explanation, and marking the omitted references( ) by placing them within brackets, i proceed to analyze the two notes in contrast with dr. westcott's statements. these consist only of an additional page of baur's work first quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second note, but accidentally left out of the note . {lvi} see page scan, ed. {lvii} see page scan, ed. {lviii} see page scan, ed. {lix} it will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that baur, in the note in which dr. westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it and against the earlier date, and as dr. westcott considers, rightly, that argument should decide everything, i am surprised that he has not perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as statements of evidence. to sum up the opinions expressed, i may state that whilst all the nine writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted, three of them (bleek, guericke, and mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to rome, one (brctschneider) mentions no place, one (hagenbach) is doubtful, but leans to antioch, and the other four declare for the martyrdom in antioch. nothing, however, could show more conclusively the purpose of note , which i have explained, than this very contradiction, and the fact that i claim for the general statement in the text, regarding the martyrdom in antioch itself in opposition to the legend of the journey to and death in rome, only the authorities in note , which i shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with dr. westcott's statements, and here beg the favour of the readers attention. (see page scans, lix to lxii ed.) {lxiii} at the close of this analysis dr. westcott sums up the result as follows: "in this case, therefore, again, volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, what scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'"( ) on the canon, preface th ed. p. xxiv. dr. westcott adds, in a note, "it may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display of learning in connexion with ignatius, i do not see even in the second edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of zahn." i might reply to this that my ms. had left my hands before zahn's work had reached england, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which reference was necessary. {lxiv} it is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of the fact than the statement that "volkmar alone offers any arguments in support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon any ordinary theory. my mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate idea of the elaborate arguments of volkmar, baur, and hilgenfeld, but i hope to state their main features, a few pages on. with regard to dr. westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he expresses his own belief. it is impossible to secure absolute unanimity of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether i refer to writers, in connection with the circumstances which i affirm to be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. a critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all when the elaborate reasoning of men like volkmar, baur and hilgenfeld is referred to. therefore, when he goes on to say: "it seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. any one who will candidly consider this analysis will, i believe, agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which runs through the whole work, is justly characterized as frivolous and misleading."( ) dr. westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his own criticism of it, endorsed by professor lightfoot, is "frivolous and misleading," and i venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy of my references. as dr. westcott does not advance any further arguments {lxv} of his own in regard to the ignatian controversy, i may now return to dr. lightfoot, and complete my reply to his objections; but i must do so with extreme brevity, as i have already devoted too much space to this subject, and must now come to a close. to the argument that it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various churches, dr. lightfoot advances arguments, derived from zahn, regarding the roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." these cases, however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is assumed. that christians imprisoned for their religious belief should receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. the case of ignatius, however, is very different. if the meaning of [--greek--] be that, although receiving bribes, the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the roman procedure is described by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-ignatius can be pointed out in any known instance. the case of saturus and perpetua, even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very different; (l) but in {lxvi} fact there is no evidence whatever that the extant history was written by either of them,( ) but on the contrary, i maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. dr. lightfoot advances the instance of paul as a case in point of a christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with churches and individuals as he desires."( ) it is scarcely possible to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-ignatius and paul, as narrated in the "acts of the apostles," although doubtless the story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the latter. whilst ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a christian, paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a roman citizen, rescued from infuriated jews (xxiii. ), repeatedly declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds (xxv. , xxvi. ), and who might have been set at liberty but that he had appealed to cæsar (xxv. f., xxvi. ). his position was one which secured the sympathy of the roman soldiers. ignatius 'fights with beasts from syria even unto rome,' and is cruelly treated by his "ten leopards," but paul is represented as receiving very different treatment. felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come and minister to him (xxiv. ), and when the voyage is commenced it is said that julius, who had charge of paul, treated him courteously, and gave him liberty to go to see his friends at sidon (xxvii. ). at rome he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him (xxviii. ), and he continued for two years in his own hired house. {lxvii} these circumstances are totally different from those under which the epistles of ignatius are said to have been written. "but the most powerful testimony," dr. lightfoot goes on to say, "is derived from the representations of a heathen writer."( ) the case of peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate than that of paul. of peregrinus himself, historically, we really know little or nothing, for the account of lucian is scarcely received as serious by any one. lucian narrates that this peregrinus proteus, a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, found it convenient to leave his own country. in the course of his travels he fell in with christians and learnt their doctrines, and, according to lucian, the christians soon were mere children in his hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him as a law-giver, and elected him their chief man."( ) after a time he was put in prison for his new faith, which lucian says was a real service to him afterwards in his impostures. during the time he was in prison, he is said to have received those services from christians which dr. lightfoot quotes. peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the governor of syria, who loved philosophy,( ) and travelled about living in great comfort at the expense of the christians, until at last they quarrelled in consequence, lucian thinks, of his eating some forbidden food. finally, peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself into the flames of a funeral pile during the olympian games. an earthquake is said to have taken {lxviii} place at the time; a vulture flew out from the pile crying out with a human voice; and shortly after peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment unhurt by the fire. now this writing, of which i have given the barest sketch, is a direct satire upon christians, or even, as baur affirms, "a parody of the history of jesus."( ) there are no means of ascertaining that any of the events of the christian career of peregrinus were true, but it is obvious that, lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the christians to peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of the satire. there is another circumstance which must be mentioned. lucian's account of peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the ignatian epistles as evidence for them.( ) "the singular correspondence in this narrative with the account of ignatius, combined with some striking coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that lucian was acquainted with the ignatian history, if not with the ignatian letters." these are the words of dr. lightfoot, although he guards himself, in referring to this argument, by the words: "if it be true," and does not express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "at all events it is conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that christian prisoners were treated in the very way described in these epistles."( ) on the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. if it were true that lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the ignatian epistles and martyrology, {lxix} it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the treatment of christian prisoners. on the other hand, as this cannot be shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical value. apart from all this, however, the case of peregrinus, a man confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of ignatius condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, cruelly treated by the "ten leopards"; and further the liberty of pseudo-ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free intercourse as they represent. i will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of the writers referred to in the note(l) attacked by dr. westcott, in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, demonstrate that ignatius was not sent to rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in antioch itself. the reader who wishes to go minutely into the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and i will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the source of each argument. where i add any particulars i will, when necessary, give my authorities. the ignatian epistles and martyrologies set forth that, during a general persecution of christians, in syria at least, ignatius was condemned by trajan, when he wintered in antioch during the parthian war, to be taken to rome and cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre. instead of being sent to rome by the short sea voyage, he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more difficult land route. the ten soldiers who {lxx} guard him are described by himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but all the way from syria to rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he "fights with beasts." notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely receives deputations from the various churches, who, far from being molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to accompany him in his journey. he not only converses with these freely, but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various churches which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled with advanced views of church government, and the dignity of the episcopate. these circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions of the truth of the documents, and of the story which they set forth. when we inquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. all that is known of the treatment of christians during the reign of trajan, as well as of the character of the emperor, is opposed to the supposition that ignatius could have been condemned by trajan himself, or even by a provincial governor, to be taken to rome and there cast to the beasts. it is well known that under trajan there was no general persecution of christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular fury and superstition.( ) dean milman says: "trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the christians." in a note, he adds: "excepting of ignatius, probably of simeon of jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of trajan."--hist, of christianity, , ii. p. . {lxxi} an instance of this kind was the martyrdom of simeon, bishop of jerusalem, reported by hegesippus. he was not condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to rome for the purpose. why should ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? in fact, even during the persecutions under marcus aurelius, although christians in syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is no instance recorded in which any one condemned to this fate was sent to rome. such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of trajan and his principles of government. neander, in a passage quoted by baur, says: "as he (trajan), like pliny, considered christianity mere fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and the matter by degrees come to an end."( ) this was certainly the policy which mainly characterized his reign. now not only would such a severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a long journey by land through asia, and allowing him to pass through some of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various christian communities, and address long epistles to them. with the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and enthusiasm. it may not be out of place, as an indication of the results of impartial examination, to {lxxii} point out that neander's inability to accept the ignatian epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "we do not recognize the emperor trajan in this narrative," (the martyrology) he says, "therefore cannot but doubt every thing which is related by this document, as well as that, during this reign, christians can have been cast to the wild beasts."( ) if, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by trajan himself, ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, the story does not gain greater probability. it is not credible that such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition to the spirit of the emperor's government besides, if such a governor did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in antioch? why send the prisoner to rome? by doing so he made all the more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the clement trajan. the cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, of christians being sent for execution in rome. the transport to rome is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that ignatius, like simeon of jerusalem, may have been condemned to death during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the christians, to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. we are not without indications of such a cause operating in the case of ignatius. {lxxiii} it is generally admitted that the date of trajan's visit to antioch is a.d. , when he wintered there during the parthian war. an earthquake occurred on the th december of that year, which was well calculated to excite popular superstition. it may not be out of place to quote here the account of the earthquake given by dean milmau, who, although he mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in rome, still associates the condemnation of ignatius with the earthquake. he says: "nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in antioch.... at this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and destructive, shook the cities of the east. antioch suffered its most appalling ravages--antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for the emperor's invasion of the east, with ambassadors and tributary kings from all parts of the east. the city shook through all its streets; houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. many were killed: the consul pedo died of his hurts. the emperor himself hardly escaped through a window, and took refuge in the circus, where he passed some days in the open air. whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of the gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? this was towards the end of january; early in february the christian bishop, ignatius, was arrested. we know how, during this century, at every period of public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the panic-stricken heathens was, 'the christians to the lions!' it may be that, in trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, the execution was ordered to {lxxiv} take place, not in antioch, but in rome."( ) i contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution in antioch infinitely more probable. to continue, however: the earthquake occurred on the th, and the martyrdom of ignatius took place on the th december, just a week after the earthquake. his remains, as we know from chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, interred at antioch. the natural inference is that the martyrdom, the only part of the ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in rome but in antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against the [--greek--] aroused by the earthquake. i will now go more into the details of the brief statements i have just made, and here we come for the first time to john malalas. in the first place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the th december. i will quote dr. lightfoot's own rendering of his further important statement. he says: "the words of john malalas are: 'the same king trajan was residing in the same city (antioch) when the visitation of god (i.e. the earthquake) occurred. and at that time the holy ignatius, the bishop of the city of antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony), [--greek--] before him [--greek--]; for he was exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'"( ) dr. lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. he argues that malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere may record stupid traditions.( ) if the narrative of foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by those who relate them, the {lxxv} whole of the fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. dr. lightfoot also asserts that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced by volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of malalas, who gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to the emperor."(l) on the other hand, it in no way contradicts it, for ignatius can only have "reviled" trajan when brought before him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of malalas is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the main, of course, directly supports it. then dr. lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary argument: "but it may be worth while adding that the error of malalas is capable of easy explanation. he has probably misinterpreted some earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. the words [--greek--], which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression [--greek--] again is ambiguous and might denote either 'during the reign of trajan,' or 'in the presence of trajan.' a blundering writer like malalas might have stumbled over either expression."( ) this is a favourite device. in case his abuse of poor malalas should not sufficiently discredit him, dr. lightfoot attempts to explain away his language. it would be difficult indeed to show that the words [--greek--], already used in that sense in the new testament, were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of ignatius which malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as dr. lightfoot indeed has in the {lxxvi} first instance rendered the phrase. even zahn, whom dr. lightfoot so implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points. "the [--greek--] together with [--greek--] can only signify 'coram trajano' ('in the presence of trajan'), and [--greek--] only the execution."( ) let any one simply read over dr. lightfoot's own rendering, which i have quoted above, and he will see that such quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, malalas seems excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority. that the statement of malalas does not agree with the reports of the fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that none of them had information from any other source than the ignatian epistles themselves, or tradition. eusebius evidently had not. irenæus, origen, and some later fathers tell us nothing about him. jerome and chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. malalas is the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. malalas lived at antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. it is objected that so also did chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet he repeats the roman story. this, however, is no valid argument against malalas. chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, and had been quoted by earlier fathers. it is in no way surprising that, some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly have accepted the representations of the epistles purporting to have been {lxxvii} written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have shaped the prevailing tradition. the remains of ignatius, as we are informed by chrysostom and jerome, long remained interred in the cemetery of antioch, but finally,--in the time of theodosius, it is said,--were translated with great pomp and ceremony to a building which,--such is the irony of events,--had previously been a temple of fortune. the story told, of course, is that the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the coliseum and carried from rome to antioch. after reposing there for some centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from rome to antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from antioch to rome.( ) the natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead of this double translation, the bones of ignatius had always remained in antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they had been brought back from rome was merely the explanation which reconciled the fact of their actually being in antioch with the legend of the ignatian epistles. the th of december is the date assigned to the death of ignatius in the martyrology,( ) and zahn admits that this interpretation is undeniable.( ) moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated on that day in the greek churches and throughout the east. in the latin church it is kept on the st of february. there can be little doubt that this was the day of the translation of the relics to rome, and this was evidently the i need not refer to the statement of nicephorus that these relics were first brought from rome to constantinople and afterwards translated to antioch. {lxxviii} view of ruinart, who, although he could not positively contradict the views of his own church, says: "ignatii festum graeci vigesima die mensis decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum fuisse acta testantur; latini vero die prima februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus reli-quiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat."( ) zahn( ) states that the feast of the translation in later calendars was celebrated on the th january, and he points out the evident ignorance which prevailed in the west regarding ignatius.( ) on the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess regarding the reign and character of trajan discredit the story that ignatius was sent to rme to be exposed to beasts in the coliseum; and all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the epistles themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in antioch itself. on the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the statement that ignatius was sent to rme is more or less directly based upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. and what is the value of any evidence emanating from the ignatian epistles and martyrologies? there are three martyrologies which, as ewald says, are "the one more fabulous than the other." there are fifteen epistles all equally purporting to be by {xxix} ignatius, and most of them handed down together in mss., without any distinction. three of these, in latin only, are universally rejected, as are also other five epistles, of which there are greek, latin, and other versions. of the remaining seven there are two forms, one called the long recension and another shorter, known as the vossian epistles. the former is almost unanimously rejected as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics assert that the text of the vossian epistles is likewise very impure. besides these there is a still shorter version of three epistles only, the cure-tonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine letters of ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the epistles in any form. the second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but i venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous than in dealing with the martyr of antioch. the mere statement of the simple and acknowledged facts regarding the ignatian epistles is ample justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends dr. lightfoot, that "the whole of the ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud." even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as genuine more than the three short syriac letters( ) out of this mass of forgery which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. documents which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove anything. as i have shown, however, the vossian epistles, whatever the value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in favour of our gospels, rather discredit them. {lxxx} i have now minutely followed professor lightfoot and dr. westcott in their attacks upon me in connection with eusebius and the ignatian epistles, and i trust that i have shown once for all that the charges of "misrepresentation" and "misstatement" so lightly and liberally advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. it is impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials, to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but i have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and i venture to think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made. before closing, i must say a few words regarding another of my critics, who is, however, of a very different order. my system of criticism is naturally uncongenial to mr. matthew arnold, but while he says so with characteristic vigour, he likewise speaks of this work with equally characteristic generosity, and i cordially thank him. i could only be classed by mistake amongst the "objectors" to "literature and dogma," and however different may be the procedure in "supernatural religion," there is fundamental agreement between the two works, and the one may be considered the complement of the other. some one must do the "pounding," if religion is to be a matter of belief and not of mere shifty opinion. we really address two distinct classes of readers. the reader who "has read _and accepted_" mr. matthew arnold's "half dozen lines about the composition of the gospels," and his "half dozen pages about miracles," may in one sense be "just in the same position as when he has read "the whole of this work,( ) but {lxxxi} i have written for those who do not accept them, and who,--as i think rightly,--distrust the conclusions merely forced upon them by ordinary "reflection and experience," and in such important matters demand evidence of a much more tangible kind. i would put it to mr. arnold whether, in seeming to depreciate any attempt to systematize and carry to logical conclusions the whole argument regarding the reality of miracles and divine revelation, he does not do himself injustice, and enunciate a dangerous doctrine. no doubt his own clear insight and wide culture have enabled him to discern truth more surely, and with less apparent effort, than most of those whom he addresses, but in encouraging, as he thus practically does, the adoption by others of religious views with very little trouble or thought, which have certainly cost himself years of training and study, he both cheapens his own intellectual labour, and advocates a superficiality which already has too many attractions. whether he address readers whose belief is already established, or those who are ready to accept it second hand from himself, it seems to me that no work should be unwelcome which supplies evidence of the results, which it has suited his own immediate purpose merely to assume. mr. matthew arnold objects that my book leaves the reader "with the feeling that the bible stands before him like a fair tree all stripped, torn and defaced, not at all like a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations,"( ) but if this be the case, i submit that it is a necessary process through which the bible must go, before it can be successfully transplanted into that healthy soil, in which alone its leaves can truly be for the contemporary boviow," october, , p. . {lxxxii} healing of any one. under such circumstances, destructive must precede constructive criticism. it is only when we clearly recognize that the bible is not the "word of god" that we can worthily honour and "enjoy" it as the word of man. mr. matthew arnold finely says, with regard to what jesus said and did, that: "his reporters were incapable of rendering it, he was so much above them"; and he rightly considers that the governing idea of our criticism of the four evangelists should be "to make out what in their report of jesus, is jesus, and what is the reporters." i hold, however, that it is only after such an examination as i have endeavoured to carry out, and which for the time must seem hard and wanting in sympathetic appreciation, that most persons educated in christendom can rightly put any such governing idea into practice. it is only when we are entitled to reject the theory of miraculous divine revelation that the bible attains its full beauty, losing the blots and anomalies which it presented in its former character, and acquiring wondrous significance as the expression of the hopes and aspirations of humanity, from which every man may learn wisdom and derive inspiration. the value of such a book seems to me indestructible. i heartily sympathise with mr. arnold's desire to secure due appreciation for the venerable volume, of the beauty of which he has so fine and delicate a perception. a truer insight into its meaning may certainly be imparted by such eloquent and appreciating criticism, and no one is a better judge than mr. matthew arnold of the necessity to plead for the book, with those who are inclined thoughtlessly to reject it along with the errors which have grown with and been based upon it. but, in the end, every man who {lxxxiii} has a mind and a heart must love and honour the bible, and he who has neither is beyond the reach of persuasion. this work has been revised throughout.( ) it was, as i stated at the time, originally carried through the press under very great difficulties, and the revision of details, upon which i had counted, was not only prevented, but, beyond a careful revision of the first part for the second edition, circumstances have until now even prevented my seriously reading through the work since it has been in print. to those who have been good enough to call my attention to errors, or to suggest improvements, i return very sincere thanks. in making this revision i have endeavoured to modify unimportant points, in some of which i have been misunderstood, so as to avoid as far as possible raising difficulties, or inviting discussion without real bearing upon the main argument. as i know the alacrity with which some critics seize upon such points as serious concessions, i beg leave to say that i have not altered anything from change of opinion. i trust that greater clearness and accuracy may have been secured. march th, . it is right to mention that, whilst i have examined a great many of the references, i have not had time to verify them all. preface to the first edition. the present work is the result of many years of earnest and serious investigation, undertaken in the first instance for the regulation of personal belief, and now published as a contribution towards the establishment of truth in the minds of others who are seeking for it. the author's main object has been conscientiously and fully to state the facts of the case, to make no assertions the grounds for which are not clearly given, and as far as possible to place before the reader the materials from which a judgment may be intelligently formed regarding the important subject discussed. the great teacher is reported to have said: "be ye approved money-changers," wisely discerning the gold of truth, and no man need hesitate honestly to test its reality, and unflinchingly to reject base counterfeits. it is obvious that the most indispensable requisite in regard to religion is that it should be true. no specious hopes or flattering promises can have the slightest value unless they be genuine and based upon substantial realities. fear of the results of investigation, therefore, should deter no man, for the issue in any case is gain: emancipation from delusion, or increase of assurance. it is poor honour to sequester a creed from healthy handling, or to shrink from the serious examination of its doctrines. that which is true in religion cannot be shaken; that which is false no one can desire to preserve. {lxxxvi} preface to the second edition. the author has taken advantage of the issue of a second edition to revise this work. he has re-written portions of the first part, and otherwise re-arranged it. he hopes that the argument has thus been made more clear and consecutive. introduction. theoretically, the duty of adequate inquiry into the truth of any statement of serious importance before believing it is universally admitted. practically, no duty is more universally neglected. this is more especially the case in regard to religion, in which our concern is so great, yet the credentials of which so few personally examine. the difficulty of such an investigation and the inability of most men to pursue it, whether from want of opportunity or want of knowledge, are no doubt the chief reasons for this neglect; but another, and scarcely less potent, obstacle has probably been the odium which has been attached to any doubt regarding the dominant religion, as well as the serious, though covert, discouragement of the church to all critical examination of the title-deeds of christianity. the spirit of doubt, if not of intelligent inquiry, has, however, of late years become too strong for repression, and, at the present day, the pertinency of the question of a german writer: "are we still christians?" receives unconscious {xcii} illustration from many a popular pulpit, and many a social discussion. the prevalent characteristic of popular theology in england, at this time, may be said to be a tendency to eliminate from christianity, with thoughtless dexterity, every supernatural element which does not quite accord with current opinion, and yet to ignore the fact that, in so doing, ecclesiastical christianity has practically been altogether abandoned. this tendency is fostered with profoundly illogical zeal by many distinguished men within the church itself, who endeavour to arrest for a moment the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief which press upon it, by practically throwing to them, scrap by scrap, the very doctrines which constitute the claims of christianity to be regarded as a divine revelation at all. the moral christianity which they hope to preserve, noble though it be, has not one feature left to distinguish it as a miraculously communicated religion. christianity itself distinctly pretends to be a direct divine revelation of truths beyond the natural attainment of the human intellect. to submit the doctrines thus revealed, therefore, to criticism, and to clip and prune them down to the standard of human reason, whilst at the same time their supernatural character is maintained, is an obvious absurdity. christianity must either be recognized to be a divine revelation beyond man's criticism, and in that case its doctrines must be received even though reason cannot be satisfied, or the claims of christianity to be such a divine revelation must be disallowed, in which case it becomes the legitimate subject of criticism like every other human system. one or other of these alternatives must be adopted, but to {xciii} assert that christianity is divine, and yet to deal with it as human, is illogical and wrong. when we consider the vast importance of the interests involved, therefore, it must be apparent that there can be no more urgent problem for humanity to solve than the question: is christianity a supernatural divine revelation or not? to this we may demand a clear and decisive answer. the evidence must be of no uncertain character which can warrant our abandoning the guidance of reason, and blindly accepting doctrines which, if not supernatural truths, must be rejected by the human intellect as monstrous delusions. we propose in this work to seek a conclusive answer to this momentous question. it appears to us that at no time has such an investigation been more requisite. the results of scientific inquiry and of biblical criticism have created wide-spread doubt regarding the most material part of christianity considered as a divine revelation. the mass of intelligent men in england are halting between two opinions, and standing in what seems to us the most unsatisfactory position conceivable: they abandon, before a kind of vague and indefinite, if irresistible, conviction, some of the most central supernatural doctrines of christianity; they try to spiritualize or dilute the rest into a form which does not shock their reason; and yet they cling to the delusion, that they still retain the consolation and the hope of truths which, if not divinely revealed, are mere human speculation regarding matters beyond reason. they have, in fact, as little warrant to abandon the one part as they have to retain the other. they build their house upon the sand, and the waves which have already carried away so much may any day engulf the rest. at the same time, amid this general eclipse of faith, many {xciv} an earnest mind, eagerly seeking for truth, endures much bitter pain,--unable to believe--unable freely to reject--and yet without the means of securing any clear and intelligent reply to the inquiry: "what is truth?" any distinct assurance, whatever its nature, based upon solid grounds, would be preferable to such a state of doubt and hesitation. once persuaded that we have attained truth, there can be no permanent regret for vanished illusions. we must, however, by careful and impartial investigation, acquire the right to our belief, whatever it may be, and not float like a mere waif into the nearest haven. flippant unbelief is much worse than earnest credulity. the time is ripe for arriving at a definite conviction as to the character of christianity. there is no lack of materials for a final decision, although hitherto they have been beyond the reach of most english readers, and a careful and honest examination of the subject, even if it be not final, cannot fail to contribute towards a result more satisfactory than the generally vague and illogical religious opinion of the present day. even true conclusions which are arrived at either accidentally or by wrong methods are dangerous. the current which by good fortune led to-day to truth may to-morrow waft us to falsehood. that such an investigation cannot, even at the present time, be carried on in england without incurring much enmity and opposition need scarcely be remarked, however loudly the duty and liberty of inquiry be theoretically proclaimed, and the reason is obvious. if we look at the singular diversity of views entertained, not only with regard to the doctrines, but also to the evidences, of christianity, we cannot but be struck by the helpless position in which divine revelation is now placed. {xcv} orthodox christians at the present day may be divided into two broad classes, one of which professes to base the church upon the bible, and the other the bible upon the church. the one party assert that the bible is fully and absolutely inspired, that it contains god's revelation to man, and that it is the only and sufficient ground for all religious belief; and they maintain that its authenticity is proved by the most ample and irrefragable external as well as internal evidence. what then must be the feeling of any ordinary mind on hearing, on the other hand, that men of undoubted piety and learning, as well as unquestioned orthodoxy, within the church of england, admit that the bible is totally without literary or historical evidence, and cannot for a moment be upheld upon any such grounds as the revealed word of god; that none of the great doctrines of ecclesiastical christianity can be deduced from the bible alone;( ) and that, "if it be impossible to accept the literary method of dealing with holy scripture, the usual mode of arguing the truth of revelation, _ab extra_, merely from what are called 'evidences'--whether of miracles done or prophecies uttered thousands of years ago,--must also be insufficient."?( ) it cannot be much comfort to be assured by them that, notwithstanding this absence of external and internal evidence, this revelation stands upon the sure basis of the inspiration of a church, which has so little ground in history for any claim to infallibility. the unsupported testimony of a church which in every age has vehemently maintained errors and denounced truths which are now universally recognized is no {xcvi} sufficient guarantee of divine revelation. obviously, there is no ground for accepting from a fallible church and fallacious tradition doctrines which, avowedly, are beyond the criterion of reason, and therefore require miraculous evidence. with belief based upon such uncertain grounds, and with such vital difference of views regarding evidence, it is not surprising that ecclesiastical christianity has felt its own weakness, and entrenched itself against the assaults of investigation. it is not strange that intellectual vigour in any direction should, almost unconsciously, have been regarded as dangerous to the repose and authority of the church, and that, instead of being welcomed as a virtue, religious inquiry has almost been repelled as a crime. such inquiry, however, cannot be suppressed. mere scientific questions may be regarded with apathy by those who do not feel their personal bearing. it may possibly seem to some a matter of little practical importance to them to determine whether the earth revolves round the sun, or the sun round the earth; but no earnest mind can fail to perceive the immense personal importance of truth in regard to religion--the necessity of investigating, before accepting, dogmas, the right interpretation of which is represented as necessary to salvation,--and the clear duty, before abandoning reason for faith, to exercise reason, in order that faith may not be mere credulity. as bacon remarked, the injunction: "hold fast that which is good," must always be preceded by the maxim: "prove all things." even archbishop trench has said: "credulity is as real, if not so great, a sin as unbelief," applying the observation to the duty of demanding a "sign" from any one professing to be the utterer of a revelation: "else might he lightly {xcvii} be persuaded to receive that as from god, which, indeed, was only the word of man."( ) the acceptance of any revelation or dogma, however apparently true in itself, without "sign"--without evidence satisfying the reason, is absolute credulity. even the most thorough advocate of faith must recognise that reason must be its basis, and that faith can only legitimately commence where reason fails. the appeal is first to reason if afterwards to faith, and no man pretending to intellectual conscience can overlook the primary claim of reason. if it is to be more than a mere question of priority of presentation whether we are to accept buddhism, christianity, or mahometanism, we must strictly and fearlessly examine the evidence upon which they profess to stand. the neglect of examination can never advance truth, as the severest scrutiny can never retard it, but belief without discrimination can only foster ignorance and superstition. it was in this conviction that the following inquiry into the reality of divine revelation was originally undertaken, and that others should enter upon it. an able writer, who will not be suspected of exaggeration on this subject, has said: "the majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief rather to the outward influence of custom and education, than to any strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would not find their belief so easy, and so matter-of-course a thing as they appear to find it."( ) to no earnest mind can such inquiry be otherwise than a serious and often a {xcviii} painful task, but, dismissing preconceived ideas and preferences derived from habit and education, and seeking only the truth, holding it, whatever it may be, to be the only object worthy of desire, or capable of satisfying a rational mind, the quest cannot but end in peace and satisfaction. in such an investigation, however, to quote words of archbishop whately: "it makes all the difference in the world whether we place truth in the first place or in the second place."--for if truth acquired do not compensate for every pet illusion dispelled, the path is thorny indeed, although it must still be faithfully trodden. an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation. part i. chapter i. miracles in relation to christianity at the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true character of christianity we are brought face to face with the supernatural. christianity professes to be a divine revelation of truths which the human intellect could not otherwise have discovered. it is not a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man and appealing to his reason, but a system miraculously communicated to the human race, the central doctrines of which are either superhuman or untenable. if the truths said to be revealed were either of an ordinary character or naturally attainable they would at once discredit the claim to a divine origin. no one could maintain that a system discoverable by reason would be supernaturally communicated. the whole argument for christianity turns upon the necessity of such a revelation and the consequent probability that it would be made. { } there is nothing singular, it may be remarked, in the claim of christianity to be a direct revelation from god. with the exception of the religions of greece and rome, which, however, also had their subsidiary supposition of divine inspiration, there has scarcely been any system of religion which has not been proclaimed to the world as a direct divine communication. long before christianity claimed this character, the religions of india had anticipated the idea. to quote the words of an accomplished scholar:--"according to the orthodox views of indian theologians, not a single line of the veda was the work of human authors. the whole veda is in some way or other the work of the deity; and even those who received it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable, therefore, to error in the reception of revealed truth."( ) the same origin is claimed for the religion of zoroaster, whose doctrines, beyond doubt, exercised great influence at least upon later jewish theology, and whose magian followers are appropriately introduced beside the cradle of jesus, as the first to do honour to the birth of christianity. in the same way mahomet announced his religion as directly communicated from heaven. christianity, however, as a religion professing to be divinely revealed, is not only supernatural in origin and doctrine, but its claim to acceptance is necessarily based upon supernatural evidence; for it is obvious that truths which require to be miraculously communicated do not come within the range of our intellect, and cannot, therefore, be intelligently received upon internal testimony. "and, certainly," says a recent able bampton lecturer, "if it was the will of god to give a revelation, there are { } plain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary as the guarantee and voucher for that revelation. a revelation is, properly speaking, such only by virtue of telling us something which we could not know without it. but how do we know that that communication of what is undiscoverable by human reason is true? our reason cannot prove the truth of it, for it is by the very supposition beyond our reason. there must be, then, some note or sign to certify to it and distinguish it as a true communication from god, which note can be nothing else than a miracle."( ) in another place the same lecturer stigmatizes the belief of the mahometan "as in its very principle irrational," because he accepts the account which mahomet gave of himself, without supernatural evidence.( ) the belief of the christian is contrasted with it as rational, "because the christian believes in a supernatural dispensation upon the proper evidence of such a dispensation, viz., the miraculous."( ) mahomet is reproached with having "an utterly barbarous idea of evidence, and a total miscalculation of the claims of reason," because he did not consider miraculous evidence necessary to attest a supernatural dispensation;" whereas the gospel is adapted to perpetuity for this cause especially, with others, that it was founded upon a true calculation, and a foresight of the permanent need of evidence; our lord admitting the inadequacy of his own mere word, and the necessity of a rational guarantee to his revelation of his own nature and commission."( ) { } the spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence, indeed, has always been advanced as a special characteristic of christianity, logically entitling it to acceptance in contradistinction to all other religions. "it is an acknowledged historical fact," says bishop butler, "that christianity offered itself to the world, and demanded to be received, upon the allegation, i. e,, as unbelievers would speak, upon the pretence, of miracles, publicly wrought to attest the truth of it in such an age;... and christianity, including the dispensation of the old testament, seems distinguished by this from all other religions."( ) most of the great english divines have clearly recognized and asserted the necessity of supernatural evidence to establish the reality of a supernatural revelation. bishop butler affirms miracles and the completion of prophecy to be the "direct and fundamental proofs" of christianity.( ) elsewhere he says: "the notion of a miracle, considered as a proof of a divine mission, has been stated with great exactness by divines, and is, i think, sufficiently understood by every one. there are also invisible miracles, the incarnation of christ, for instance, which, being secret, cannot be alleged as a proof of such a mission; but require themselves to be proved by visible miracles. revelation itself, too, is miraculous; and miracles are the proof of it."( ) paley states the case with equal clearness: "in what way can a revelation be made but by miracles? in none which we are able to conceive."( ) his argument in fact is founded upon the principle that: "nothing but miracles { } could decide the authority" of christianity.( ) in another work he asserts that no man can prove a future retribution, but the teacher "who testifies by miracles that his doctrine comes from god."( ) bishop atterbury, again, referring to the principal doctrines of ecclesiastical christianity, says: "it is this kind of truth that god is properly said to reveal; truths, of which, unless revealed, we should have always continued ignorant; and 'tis in order only to prove these truths to have been really revealed, that we affirm miracles to be necessary."( ) dr. heurtley, the margaret professor of divinity in the university of oxford, after pointing out that the doctrines taught as the christian revelation are such as could not by any possibility have been attained by the unassisted human reason, and that, consequently, it is reasonable that they should be attested by miracles, continues: "indeed, it seems inconceivable how without miracles--including prophecy in the notion of a miracle--it could sufficiently have commended itself to men's belief? who would believe, or would be justified in believing, the great facts which constitute its substance on the _ipse dixit_ of an unaccredited teacher? and how, except by miracles, could the first teacher be accredited? paley, then, was fully warranted in the assertion.... that 'we cannot conceive a revelation'--such a revelation of course as christianity professes to be, a revelation of truths which transcend man's ability to discover,--' to be { } substantiated without miracles.' other credentials, it is true, might be exhibited _in addition_ to miracles,--and such it would be natural to look for,--but it seems impossible that miracles could be dispensed with."( ) dr. mansel, the late dean of st. paul's, bears similar testimony: "a teacher who proclaims himself to be specially sent by god, and whose teaching is to be received on the authority of that mission, must, from the nature of the case, establish his claim by proofs of another kind than those which merely evince his human wisdom or goodness. a superhuman authority needs to be substantiated by superhuman evidence; and what is superhuman is miraculous."( ) dr. j. h. newman, in discussing the idea and scope of miracles, says: "a revelation, that is, a direct message from god to man, itself bears in some degree a miraculous character;... and as a revelation itself, so again the evidences of a revelation may all more or less be considered miraculous.... it might even be said that, strictly speaking, no evidence of a revelation is conceivable which does not partake of the character of a miracle; since nothing but a display of power over the existing system of things can attest the immediate presence of him by whom it was originally established."( ) dr. mozley has stated in still stronger terms the necessity that christianity should be authenticated by the evidence of miracles. he supposes the case that a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character had appeared, eighteen centuries ago, announcing himself as pre-existent from all eternity, the son of god, maker { } of the world, who had come down from heaven and assumed the form and nature of man in order to be the lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world, and so on, enumerating other doctrines of christianity. dr. mozley then asks: "what would be the inevitable conclusion of sober reason respecting that person? the necessary conclusion of sober reason respecting that person would be that he was disordered in his understanding... by no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements. miracles are the necessary complement, then, of the truth of such announcements, which, without them, are purposeless and abortive, the unfinished fragments of a design which is nothing unless it is the whole. they are necessary to the justification of such announcements, which indeed, unless they are supernatural truths, are the wildest delusions."( ) he, therefore, concludes that: "christianity cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human reason, a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation, without the evidence of miracles."( ) in all points, christianity is emphatically a supernatural religion claiming to be divine in its origin, superhuman in its essence and miraculous in its evidence. it cannot be accepted without an absolute belief in miracles, and those who profess to hold the religion whilst they discredit its supernatural elements--and they are many at the present day--have widely seceded from ecclesiastical christianity. miracles, it is true, are external to christianity in so far as they are evidential, but inasmuch as it is admitted that miracles alone can attest the reality of divine revelation they are still inseparable { } from it; and as the contents of the revelation are so to say more miraculous than its attesting miracles, the supernatural enters into the very substance of christianity and cannot be eliminated. it is obvious, therefore, that the reality of miracles is the vital point in the investigation which we have undertaken. if the reality of miracles cannot be established, christianity loses the only evidence by which its truth can be sufficiently attested. if miracles be incredible the supernatural revelation and its miraculous evidence must together be rejected. this fact is thoroughly recognized by the ablest christian divines. dean mansel, speaking of the position of miracles in regard to christianity, says: "the question, however, assumes a very different character when it relates, not to the comparative importance of miracles as evidences, but to their reality as facts, and as facts of a supernatural kind. for if this is denied, the denial does not merely remove one of the supports of a faith which may yet rest securely on other grounds. on the contrary, the whole system of christian belief with its evidences... all christianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of christ, is overthrown at the same time."( ) a little further on he says: "if there be one fact recorded in scripture which is entitled, in the fullest sense of the word, to the name of a miracle, the resurrection of christ is that fact. here, at least, is an instance in which the entire christian faith must stand or fall with our belief in the supernatural."( ) he, therefore, properly repudiates the view, "which represents the question of the possibility { } of miracles as one which merely affects the _external accessories_ of christianity, leaving the _essential doctrines_ untouched."( ) dr. mozley in a similar manner argues the inseparable union of miracles with the christian faith. "indeed not only are miracles _conjoined_ with doctrine in christianity, but miracles are inserted _in_ the doctrine and are part of its contents. a man cannot state his belief as a christian in the terms of the apostles' creed without asserting them. can the doctrine of our lord's incarnation be disjoined from one physical miracle? can the doctrine of his justification of us and intercession for us, be disjoined from another?... if a miracle is incorporated as an article in a creed, that article of the creed, the miracle, and the proof of it by a miracle, are all one thing. the great miracles, therefore, upon the evidence of which the christian scheme rested, being thus inserted in the christian creed, the belief in the creed was of itself the belief in the miraculous evidence of it.... thus miracles and the supernatural contents of christianity must stand or fall together."( ) dr. heurtley, referring to the discussion of the reality of miracles, exclaims: "it is not too much to say, therefore, that the question is vital as regards christianity."( ) canon westcott not less emphatically makes the same statement. "it is evident," he says, "that if the claim to be a miraculous religion is essentially incredible apostolic christianity is simply false.... the essence of christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous { } in a religious point of view."( ) similarly, a recent hulsean lecturer, dr. farrar, has said: "however skilfully the modern ingenuity of semi-belief may have tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is clear to every honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be incredible, christianity is false. if christ wrought no miracles, then the gospels are untrustworthy;... if the resurrection be merely a spiritual idea, or a mythicized hallucination, then our religion has been founded on an error...." ( ) it has been necessary clearly to point out this indissoluble connection between ecclesiastical christianity and the supernatural, in order that the paramount importance of the question as to the credibility of miracles should be duly appreciated. our inquiry into the reality of divine revelation, then, whether we consider its contents or its evidence, practically reduces itself to the very simple issue: are miracles antecedently credible? did they ever really take place? we do not intend to confine ourselves merely to a discussion of the abstract question, but shall also endeavour to form a correct estimate of the value of the specific allegations which are advanced. . having then ascertained that miracles are absolutely necessary to attest the reality of divine revelation we may proceed to examine them more closely, and for the present we shall confine ourselves to the representations of these phenomena which are given in the bible. throughout the old testament the doctrine is inculcated { } that supernatural communications must have supernatural attestation. god is described as arming his servants with power to perform wonders, in order that they may thus be accredited as his special messengers. the patriarchs and the people of israel generally are represented as demanding "a sign" of the reality of communications said to come from god, without which, we are led to suppose, they not only would not have believed, but would have been justified in disbelieving, that the message actually came from him. thus gideon( ) asks for a sign that the lord talked with him, and hezekiah( ) demands proof of the truth of isaiah's prophecy that he should be restored to health. it is, however, unnecessary to refer to instances, for it may be affirmed that upon all occasions miraculous evidence of an alleged divine mission is stated to have been required and accorded. the startling information is at the same time given, however, that miracles may be wrought to attest what is false as well as to accredit what is true. in one place,( ) it is declared that if a prophet actually gives a sign or wonder and it comes to pass, but teaches the people, on the strength of it, to follow other gods, they are not to hearken to him, and the prophet is to be put to death. the false miracle is, here,( ) attributed to god himself: "for the lord your god proveth you, to know whether ye love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul." in the book of the prophet ezekiel, the case is stated in a still stronger way, and god is represented as directly deceiving the prophet: "and if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, i the lord have deceived that prophet, and i will { } stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people israel."( ) god, in fact, is represented as exerting his almighty power to deceive a man and then as destroying him for being deceived. in the same spirit is the passage( ) in which micaiah describes the lord as putting a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets who incited ahab to go to ramoth-gilead. elsewhere,( ) and notably in the new testament, we find an ascription of real signs and wonders to another power than god. jesus himself is represented as warning his disciples against false prophets, who work signs and wonders: "many will say to me in that day, lord, lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" of whom he should say: "i never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity."( ) and again in another place: "for false prophets shall arise, and shall work signs and wonders [--greek--] to seduce, if it were possible, the elect."( ) also, when the pharisees accuse him of casting out devils by beelzebub the prince of the devils, jesus asks: "by whom do your children cast them out?"( ) a reply which would lose all its point if they were not admitted to be able to cast out devils. in another passage john is described as saying: "master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbad him."( ) without multiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of the fact { } that the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is admitted in the bible. the obvious deduction from this representation of miracles is that the source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena must always be exceedingly uncertain.( ) their evidential value is, therefore, profoundly affected, "it being," as dr. newman has said of ambiguous miracles, "antecedently improbable that the almighty should rest the credit of his revelation upon events which but obscurely implied his immediate presence."( ) as it is affirmed that other supernatural beings exist, as well as an assumed personal god, by whose agency miracles are performed, it is impossible to argue with reason that such phenomena are at any time specially due to the intervention of the deity. dr. newman recognizes this, but passes over the difficulty with masterly lightness of touch. after advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of spirits is only derived from scripture, and that their existence cannot be deduced from nature, whilst he asserts that the being of a god--a personal god be it remembered--can be so discovered, and that, therefore, miracles can only properly be attributed to him, he proceeds: "still it may be necessary to show that on our own principles we are not open to inconsistency. that is, it has been questioned whether, in admitting the existence and power of spirits on the authority of revelation, we are not in danger of { } invalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests. for the cogency of the argument for miracles depends on the assumption, that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from god; which is not true, if they may be effected by other beings without his sanction. and it must be conceded, that, explicit as scripture is in considering miracles as signs of divine agency, it still does seem to give created spirits some power of working them; and even, in its most literal sense, intimates the possibility of their working them in opposition to the true doctrine. (deut. xiii. - ; matt. xxiv. ; thess. ii. -ll.)"( ) dr. newman repudiates the attempts of various writers to overcome this difficulty by making a distinction between great miracles and small, many miracles and few, or by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested in order to determine the author of the miracle, or by denying the power of spirits altogether, and explaining away scripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative of the lord's temptation. "without having recourse to any of these dangerous modes of answering the objection," he says, "it may be sufficient to reply, that, since, agreeably to the antecedent sentiment of reason, god has adopted miracles as the seal of a divine message, we believe he will never suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive the humble inquirer."( ) this is the only reply which even so powerful a reasoner as dr. newman can give to an objection based on distinct statements of scripture itself. he cannot deny the validity of the objection, he can only hope or believe in spite of it personal belief independent of evidence is the most common and the weakest of arguments; at the { } best it is prejudice masked in the garb of reason. it is perfectly clear that miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to god and to other spirits they cannot be considered a distinctive attestation of divine intervention; and, as spinoza finely argued, not even the mere existence of god can be inferred from them; for as a miracle is a limited act, and never expresses more than a certain and limited power, it is certain that we cannot from such an effect, conclude even the existence of a cause whose power is infinite.( ) this dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in defining the evidential function and force of miracles, and we may best appreciate the dilemma which is involved by continuing to follow the statements and arguments of divines themselves. to the question whether miracles are absolutely to command the obedience of those in whose sight they are performed, and whether, upon their attestation, the doer and his doctrine are to be accepted as of god, archbishop trench unhesitatingly replies: "it cannot be so, for side by side with the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of god runs another line of wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the most high."( ) the deduction is absolutely logical and cannot be denied. "this fact," he says, "that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed { } to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims." this being the case, it is important to discover how miracles perform their function as the indispensable evidence for a divine revelation, for with this disability they do not seem to possess much potentiality. archbishop trench, then, offers the following definition of the function of miracles: "a miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine, or the divine mission of him that brings it to pass. that which alone it claims for him at the first is a right to be listened to: it puts him in the alternative of being from heaven or from hell. the doctrine must first commend itself to the conscience as being _good_, and only then can the miracle seal it as _divine_. but the first appeal is from the doctrine to the conscience, to the moral nature of man."( ) under certain circumstances, he maintains, their evidence is utterly to be rejected. "but the purpose of the miracle," he says, "being, as we have seen, to confirm that which is good, so, upon the other hand, where the mind and conscience witness against the doctrine, not all the miracles in the world have a right to demand submission to the word which they seal. on the contrary, the great act of faith { } is to believe, against, and in despite of them all, in what god has revealed to, and implanted in the soul of the holy and the true; not to believe another gospel, though an angel from heaven, or one transformed into such, should bring it (deut. xiii. ; gal. i. ); and instead of compelling assent, miracles are then rather warnings to us that we keep aloof, for they tell us that not merely lies are here, for to that the conscience bore witness already, but that he who utters them is more than a common deceiver, is eminently 'a liar and an anti-christ,' a false prophet, --standing in more immediate connection than other deceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness, so that satan has given him his power (rev. xiii. ), is using him to be an especial organ of his, and to do a special work for him."( ) and he lays down the distinct principle that: "the miracle must witness for itself, and the doctrine must witness for itself, and then, and then only, the first is capable of witnessing for the second."( ) these opinions are not peculiar to the archbishop of dublin, but are generally held by divines, although dr. trench expresses them with unusual absence of reserve. dr. mozley emphatically affirms the same doctrine when he says: "a miracle cannot oblige us to accept any doctrine which is contrary to our moral nature, or to a fundamental principle of religion."( ) dr. mansel speaks to the same effect: "if a teacher claiming to work miracles proclaims doctrines contradictory to previously established truths, whether to the conclusions of natural religion or to the teaching of a former revelation, such a contradiction is allowed even by the most zealous defenders of the evidential value of miracles, to { } invalidate the authority of the teacher. but the right conclusion from this admission is not that true miracles are invalid as evidences, but that the supposed miracles in this case are not true miracles at all; i. e., are not the effects of divine power, but of human deception or of some other agency."( ) a passage from a letter written by dr. arnold which is quoted by dr. trench in support of his views, both illustrates the doctrine and the necessity which has led to its adoption: "you complain," says dr. arnold, writing to dr. hawkins, "of those persons who judge of a revelation not by its evidence, but by its substance. it has always seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of its evidence; and that miracles wrought in favour of what was foolish or wicked would only prove manicheism. we are so perfectly ignorant of the unseen world, that the character of any supernatural power can only be judged by the moral character of the statements which it sanctions. thus only can we tell whether it be a revelation from god or from the devil."( ) in another place dr. arnold declares: "miracles must not be allowed to overrule the gospel; for it is only through our belief in the gospel that we accord our belief to them."( ) { } it is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus established between miracles and the doctrines in connection with which they are wrought destroys the evidential force of miracles, and that the first and the final appeal is made to reason. the doctrine in fact proves the miracle instead of the miracle attesting the doctrine. divines of course attempt to deny this, but no other deduction from their own statements is logically possible. miracles, according to scripture itself, are producible by various supernatural beings and may be satanic as well as divine; man, on the other hand, is so ignorant of the unseen world that avowedly he cannot, from the miracle itself, determine the agent by whom it was performed;(l) the miracle, therefore, has no intrinsic evidential value. how, then, according to divines, does it attain any potentiality? only through a favourable decision on the part of reason or the "moral nature in man" regarding the { } character of the doctrine. the result of the appeal to reason respecting the morality and credibility of the doctrine determines the evidential status of the miracle. the doctrine, therefore, is the real criterion of the miracle which, without it, is necessarily an object of doubt and suspicion. we have already casually referred to dr. newman's view of such a relation between miracle and doctrine, but may here more fully quote his suggestive remarks. "others by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested," he says, "in order to determine the author of the miracle, have exposed themselves to the plausible charge of adducing, first the miracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine, and then the doctrine to prove the divinity of the miracle."( ) this argument he characterizes as one of the "dangerous modes" of removing a difficulty, although he does not himself point out a safer, and, in a note, he adds: "there is an appearance of doing honour to the christian doctrines in representing them as _intrinsically_ credible, which leads many into supporting opinions which, carried to their full extent, supersede the need of miracles altogether. it must be recollected, too, that they who are allowed to praise have the privilege of finding fault, and may reject, according to their _á priori_ notions, as well as receive. doubtless the divinity of a clearly immoral doctrine could not be evidenced by miracles; for our belief in the moral attributes of god is much stronger than our conviction of the negative proposition, that none but he can interfere with the system of nature.( ) but there is always { } the danger of extending this admission beyond its proper limits, of supposing ourselves adequate judges of the _tendency_ of doctrines; and, because unassisted reason informs us what is moral and immoral in our own case, of attempting to decide on the abstract morality of actions;... these remarks are in nowise inconsistent with using (as was done in a former section) our actual knowledge of god's attributes, obtained from a survey of nature and human affairs, in determining the probability of certain professed miracles having proceeded from him. it is one thing to infer from the experience of life, another to imagine the character of god from the gratuitous conceptions of our own minds."( ) although dr. newman apparently fails to perceive that he himself thus makes reason the criterion of miracles and therefore incurs the condemnation with which our quotation opens, the very indecision of his argument illustrates the dilemma in which divines are placed. dr. mozley, however, still more directly condemns the principle which we are discussing--that the doctrine must be the criterion of the miracle--although he also, as we have purposes for which it never was intended, and is unfitted. to rationalise in matters of revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justification; to reject them, if they come in collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty harmonised with our existing stock of knowledge" (essays, crit. and hist., , vol. i. p. ); and a little further on: "a like desire of judging for one's self is discernible in the original fall of man. eve did not believe the tempter any more than god's word, till she perceived «the fruit was good for food '" ( ., p. ). dr. newman, of course, wishes to limit his principle precisely to suit his own convenience, but in permitting the rejection of a supposed revelation in spite of miracles, on the ground of our disapproval of its morality, it is obvious that the doctrine is substantially made the final criterion of the miracle. { } seen, elsewhere substantially affirms it. he says: "the position that the revelation proves the miracles, and not the miracles the revelation, admits of a good qualified meaning; but taken literally, it is a double offence against the rule, that things are properly proved by the proper proof of them; for a supernatural fact _is_ the proper proof of a supernatural doctrine; while a supernatural doctrine, on the other hand, is certainly _not_ the proper proof of a supernatural fact"( ) this statement is obviously true, but it is equally undeniable that, their origin being uncertain, miracles have no distinctive evidential force. how far, then, we may inquire in order thoroughly to understand the position, can doctrines prove the reality of miracles or determine the agency by which they are performed? in the case of moral truths within the limits of reason, it is evident that doctrines which are in accordance with our ideas of what is good and right do not require miraculous evidence at all. they can secure acceptance by their own merits alone. at the same time it is universally admitted that the truth or goodness of a doctrine is in itself no proof that it emanates directly from god, and consequently the most obvious wisdom and beauty in the doctrine could not attest the divine origin of a miracle. such truths, however, have no proper connection with revelation at all. "_these_ truths," to quote the words of bishop atterbury, "were of themselves sufficiently obvious and plain, and needed not a divine testimony to make them plainer. but the truths which are necessary in this manner to be attested, are those which are of positive institution; those, which if god had not pleased to reveal them, human reason could not { } have discovered; and those, which, even now they are revealed, human reason cannot fully account for, and perfectly comprehend."( ) how is it possible then that reason or "the moral nature in man" can approve as good, or appreciate the fitness of, doctrines which in their very nature are beyond the criterion of reason?( ) what reply, for instance, can reason give to any appeal to it regarding the doctrine of the trinity or of the incarnation? if doctrines the truth and goodness of which are apparent do not afford any evidence of divine revelation, how can doctrines which reason can neither discover nor comprehend attest the divine origin of miracles? dr. mozley clearly recognizes that they cannot do so. "the proof of a revelation," he says, and we may add, "the proof of a miracle--itself a species of revelation--which is contained in the substance of a revelation has this inherent check or limit in it: viz. that it cannot reach to what is undiscoverable by reason. internal evidence is itself an appeal to reason, because at every step the test is our own appreciation of such and such an idea or doctrine, our own perception of its fitness; but human reason cannot in the nature of the case prove that which, by the very hypothesis, lies beyond human reason."( ) it naturally follows that no doctrine which lies beyond reason, and therefore requires the attestation of miracles, can possibly afford that indication of the source and reality of miracles which is necessary to endow them with evidential value, and the supernatural doctrine must, therefore, be rejected in the absence of miraculous evidence of a decisive character. { } canon mozley labours earnestly, but unsuccessfully, to restore to miracles as evidence some part of that potentiality of which these unfortunate limitations have deprived them. whilst on the one hand he says: "we must admit, indeed, an inherent modification in the function of a miracle as an instrument of proof,"( ) he argues that this is only a limitation, and no disproof of it, and he contends that: "the evidence of miracles is not negatived because it has conditions."( ) his reasoning, however, is purely apologetic, and attempts by the unreal analogy of supposed limitations of natural principles and evidence to excuse the disqualifying limitation of the supernatural. he is quite conscious of the serious difficulty of the position: "the question," he says, "may at first sight create a dilemma--if a miracle is nugatory on the side of one doctrine, what cogency has it on the side of another? is it legitimate to accept its evidence when we please, and reject it when we please?" the only reply he seems able to give to these very pertinent questions is the remark which immediately follows them: "but in truth a miracle is never without an argumentative force, although that force may be counterbalanced."( ) in other words a miracle is always an argument although it is often a bad one. it is scarcely necessary to go to the supernatural for bad arguments. it might naturally be expected that the miraculous evidence selected to accredit a divine revelation should possess certain unique and marked characteristics. it must, at least, be clearly distinctive of divine power, and exclusively associated with divine truth. it is inconceivable that the deity, deigning thus to attest { } the reality of a communication from himself of truths beyond the criterion of reason, should not make the evidence simple and complete, because, the doctrines proper to such a revelation not being appreciable from internal evidence, it is obvious that the external testimony for them--if it is to be of any use--must be unmistakable and decisive. the evidence which is actually produced, however, so far from satisfying these legitimate anticipations, lacks every one of the qualifications which reason antecedently declares to be necessary. miracles are not distinctive of divine power but are common to satan, and they are admitted to be performed in support of falsehood as well as in the service of truth. they bear, indeed, so little upon them the impress of their origin and true character, that they arc dependent for their recognition upon our judgment of the very doctrines to attest which they are said to have been designed. even taking the representation of miracles, therefore, which divines themselves give, they are utterly incompetent to perform their contemplated functions. if they are superhuman they are not super-satanic, and there is no sense in which they can be considered miraculously evidential of anything. to argue, as theologians do, that the ambiguity of their testimony is deliberately intended as a trial of our faith is absurd, for reason being unable to judge of the nature either of supernatural fact or supernatural doctrine, it would be mere folly and injustice to subject to such a test beings avowedly incapable of sustaining it. whilst it is absolutely necessary, then, that a divine revelation should be attested by miraculous evidence to justify our believing it the testimony so called seems in all respects { } unworthy of the name, and presents anomalies much more suggestive of human invention than divine originality. we are, in fact, prepared even by the scriptural account of miracles to expect that further examination will supply an explanation of such phenomena which will wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. { } chapter ii. miracles in relation to the order of nature without at present touching the question as to their reality, it may be well to ascertain what miracles are considered to be, and how far, and in what sense it is asserted that they are supernatural we have, hitherto, almost entirely confined our attention to the arguments of english divines, and we must for the present continue chiefly to deal with them, for it may broadly be said, that they alone, at the present day, maintain the reality and supernatural character of such phenomena. no thoughtful mind can fail to see that, considering the function of miracles, this is the only logical and consistent course.( ) the insuperable difficulties in the way of admitting the reality of miracles, however, have driven the great majority of continental, as well as very many english, theologians who still pretend to a certain orthodoxy, either to explain the miracles of the gospel naturally, or to suppress them altogether. since schleiermacher denounced the idea of divine interruptions of the order of nature, and explained away the supernatural character { } of miracles, by defining them as merely relative: miracles to us, but in reality mere anticipations of human knowledge and power, his example has been more or less followed throughout germany, and almost every expedient has been adopted, by would-be orthodox writers, to reduce or altogether eliminate the miraculous elements. the attempts which have been made to do this, and yet to maintain the semblance of unshaken belief in the main points of ecclesiastical christianity, have lamentably failed, from the hopeless nature of the task and the fundamental error of the conception. the endeavour of paulus and his school to get rid of the supernatural by a bold naturalistic interpretation of the language of the gospel narratives, whilst the credibility of the record was represented as intact, was too glaring an outrage upon common sense to be successful, but it was scarcely more illogical than subsequent efforts to suppress the miraculous, yet retain the creed. the great majority of modern german critics, however, reject the miraculous altogether, and consider the question as no longer worthy of discussion, and most of those who have not distinctly expressed this view either resort to every linguistic device to evade the difficulty, or betray, by their hesitation, the feebleness of their belief.( ) in dealing with the { } question of miracles, therefore, it is not to germany we must turn, but to england, where their reality is still maintained. archbishop trench rejects with disdain the attempts of schleiermacher and others to get rid of the miraculous elements of miracles, by making them relative, which he rightly considers to be merely "a decently veiled denial of the miracle altogether;"( ) and he will not accept any reconciliation which sacrifices the miracle, "which," he logically affirms, "is, in fact, no miracle, if it lay in nature already, if it was only the evoking of forces latent therein, not a new thing, not the bringing in of the novel powers of a higher world; if the mysterious processes and powers by which those works were brought about had been only undiscovered hitherto, and not undiscoverable, by the efforts of human inquiry."( ) when dr. trench tries to define what he considers the real character of miracles, however, he becomes, as might be expected, { } voluminous and obscure. he says: "an extraordinary divine casualty, and not that ordinary which we acknowledge everywhere, and in everything, belongs, then, to the essence of the miracle; powers of god other than those which have always been working; such, indeed, as most seldom or never have been working before. the unresting activity of god, which at other times hides and conceals itself behind the veil of what we term natural laws, does in the miracle unveil itself; it steps out from its concealment, and the hand which works is laid bare. beside and beyond the ordinary operation of nature, higher powers (higher, not as coming from a higher source, but as bearing upon higher ends) intrude and make themselves felt even at the very springs and sources of her power."( ) "not, as we shall see the greatest theologians have always earnestly contended, _contra_ naturam, but _præter_ naturam, and _supra_ naturam."( ) further on he adds: "_beyond_ nature, _beyond_ and _above_ the nature which we know, they are, but not _contrary_ to it."( ) dr. newman, in a similar strain, though with greater directness, says: "the miracles of scripture are undeniably beyond nature;" and he explains them as "wrought by persons consciously exercising, under divine guidance, a power committed to them for definite ends, professing to be immediate messengers from heaven, and to be evidencing their mission by their miracles."( ) miracles are here described as "beside," and "beyond," and "above" nature, but a moment's consideration must { } show that, in so far as these terms have any meaning at all, they are simply evasions, not solutions, of a difficulty. dr. trench is quite sensible of the danger in which the definition of miracles places them, and how fatal to his argument is would be to admit that they are contrary to the order of nature. "the miracle," he protests, "is not thus _unnatural_; nor could it be such, since the unnatural, the contrary to order, is of itself the ungodly, and can in no way, therefore, be affirmed of a divine work, such as that with which we have to do."( ) the archbishop in this; however, is clearly arguing from nature to miracles, and not from miracles to nature. he does not, of course, know what miracles really are, but as he recognizes that the order of nature must be maintained, he is forced to assert that miracles are not contrary to nature. he repudiates the idea of their being natural phenomena; and yet attempts to deny that they are unnatural. they must either be the one or the other. the archbishop, besides; forgets that he ascribes miracles to satan as well as to god. indeed, that his distinction is purely imaginary, and inconsistent with the alleged facts of scriptural miracles, is apparent from dr. trench's own illustrations; the whole argument is a mere quibble of words to evade a palpable dilemma. dr. newman does not fall into this error, and more boldly faces the difficulty. he admits that the scripture miracles "innovate upon the impressions which are made upon us by the order and the laws of the natural world;"( ) and that "walking on the sea, or the resurrection of the dead, is a plain reversal of its laws."( ) { } take, for instance, the multiplication of loaves and fishes. five thousand people are fed upon five barley loaves and two small fishes: "and they took up of the fragments which remained twelve baskets full."( ) dr. trench is forced to renounce all help in explaining this miracle from natural analogies, and he admits: "we must simply behold in the multiplying of the bread" (and fishes?)" an act of divine omnipotence on his part who was the word of god,--not, indeed, now as at the first, of absolute creation out of nothing, since there was a substratum to work on in the original loaves and fishes, but an act of creative accretion."( ) it will scarcely be argued by any one that such an "act of divine omnipotence" and "creative accretion" as this multiplication of five baked loaves and two small fishes is not contrary to the order of nature.( ) for dr. trench has himself pointed out that there must be interposition of man's art here, and that "a grain of wheat could never by itself, and according to the laws of natural development, issue in a loaf of bread.( ) undaunted by, or rather unconscious of, such contradictions, the archbishop proceeds with his argument, and with new definitions of the miraculous. so far from being disorder of nature, he continues with audacious precision: "the true miracle is a higher and a purer { } nature coming down out of the world of untroubled harmonies into this world of ours, which so many discords have jarred and disturbed, and bringing this back again, though it be but for one mysterious prophetic moment, into harmony with that higher."( ) in that "higher and purer nature" can a grain of wheat issue in a loaf of bread? we have only to apply this theory to the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes to perceive how completely it is the creation of dr. trench's poetical fancy. these passages fairly illustrate the purely imaginary and arbitrary nature of the definitions which those who maintain the reality and supernatural character of miracles give of them. that explanation is generally adopted which seems most convenient at the moment, and none ever passes, or, indeed, ever can pass, beyond the limits of assumption. the favourite hypothesis is that which ascribes miracles to the action of unknown law. archbishop trench naturally adopts it: "we should see in the miracle," he says, "not the infraction of a law, but the neutralizing of a lower law, the suspension of it for a time by a higher;" and he asks with indignation, whence we dare conclude that, because we know of no powers sufficient to produce miracles, none exist. "they exceed the laws of _our_ nature; but it does not therefore follow that they exceed the laws of _all_ nature."( ) it is not easy { } to follow the distinction here between "_our_ nature" and "_all nature_," since the order of nature, by which miracles are judged, is, so far as knowledge goes, universal, and we have no grounds for assuming that there is any other. the same hypothesis is elaborated by dr. mozley. assuming the facts of miracles, he proceeds to discuss the question of their "referribleness to unknown law," in which expression he includes both "_unknown law_, or unknown connexion with _known_ law."( ) taking first the supposition of (unknown) connection with known law, dr. mozley argues that, as a law of nature, in the scientific sense, cannot possibly produce single or isolated facts, it follows that no isolated or exceptional event can come under a law of nature _by direct observation_, but, if it comes under it at all, it can only do so by some _explanation_, which takes it out of its isolation and joins it to a class of facts, whose recurrence indeed constitutes the law. now dr. mozley admits that no explanation can be given by which miracles can have an unknown connexion with known law. taking the largest class of miracles, bodily cures, the correspondence between a simple command or prophetic notification and the cure is the chief characteristic of miracles, and distinguishes them from mere marvels. { } no violation of any law of nature takes place in either the cure or the prophetic announcement taken separately, but the two, taken together, are the proof of superhuman agency. dr. mozley concludes that no physical hypothesis can be framed accounting for the superhuman knowledge and power involved in this class of miracles, supposing the miracles to stand as they are recorded in scripture.( ) dr. mozley then shifts the inquiry to the other and different question, whether miracles may not be instances of laws which are as yet wholly unknown.( ) this is generally called a question of "higher law," --that is to say, a law which comprehends under itself two or more lower or less wide laws. and the principle would be applicable to miracles by supposing the existence of an unknown law, hereafter to be discovered, under which miracles would come, and then considering whether this new law of miracles, and the old law of common facts, might not both be reducible to a still more general law which comprehended them both. now a law of nature, in the scientific sense, cannot exist without a class of facts which comes under it, and in reality constitutes the law; but dr. mozley of course recognizes that the discovery of such a law of miracles would necessarily involve the discovery of fresh miracles, for to talk of a law of miracles without miracles would be an absurdity.( ) the supposition of the discovery of such a law of miracles, however, would be tantamount to the supposition of a future new order of nature, from which it immediately follows that the whole supposition is irrelevant and futile as regards the present question.( ) { } for no new order of things could make the present order different, and a miracle, could we suppose it becoming the ordinary fact of another different order of nature, would not be less a violation of the laws of nature in the present one.( ) dr. mozley also rejects this explanation. we pause here to remark that, throughout the whole inquiry into the question of miracles, we meet with nothing from theologians but mere assumptions, against which the invariability of the known order of nature steadily opposes itself. the facts of the narrative of the miracle are first assumed, and so are the theories by which it is explained. now, with regard to every theory which seeks to explain miracles by assumption, we may quote words applied by one of the ablest defenders of miracles to some conclusion of straw, which he placed in the mouth of an imaginary antagonist in order that he might refute it: "but the question is," said the late dean of st. paul's, "not whether such a conclusion has been asserted, as many other absurdities have been asserted, by the advocates of a theory, but whether it has been established on such scientific grounds as to be entitled to the assent of all duly cultivated minds, whatever their own consciences may say to the contrary."( ) divines are very strict in demanding absolute demonstrations from men of science and others, but we do not find them at all ready to furnish conclusions of similar accuracy regarding dogmatic theology. immediately after his indignant demand for scientific accuracy of demonstration, dr. mansel proceeds to argue as follows: in the will of man we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause, in the highest sense of the { } term, acting among the physical causes of the material world, and producing results which could not have been brought about by any mere sequence of physical causes. if a man of his own will throw a stone into the air, its motion, as soon as it has left his hand, is determined by a combination of purely material laws; but by what _law_ came it to be thrown at all? the law of gravitation, no doubt, remains constant and unbroken, whether the stone is lying on the ground, or moving through the air, but all the laws of matter could not have brought about the particular result without the interposition of the free will of the man who throws the stone. substitute the will of god for the will of man, and the argument becomes applicable to the whole extent of creation and to all the phenomena which it embraces.( ) it is evident that dr. mansel's argument merely tends to prove that every effect must have a cause, a proposition too obvious to require any argument at all. if a man had not thrown the stone, the stone would have remained lying on the ground. no one doubts this. we have here, however, this "solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the physical causes of the material world," producing results which are wholly determined by material laws,( ) and incapable of producing any opposed to them. if, therefore, we substitute, as dr. mansel desires, "the will of god" for "the will of man," we arrive at no results which are not in harmony { } with the order of nature. we have no ground whatever for assuming any efficient cause acting in any other way than in accordance with the laws of nature. it is, how-fever, one of the gross fallacies of this argument, as applied to miracles, to pass from the efficient cause producing results which are strictly in accordance with natural laws, and determined by them, to an assumed efficient cause producing effects which are opposed to natural law. the restoration to life of a decomposed human body and the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes are opposed to natural laws, and no assumed efficient cause conceivable to which they may be referred can harmonize them. dr. mozley continues his argument in a similar way. he inquires: "is the suspension of physical and material laws by a spiritual being inconceivable? we reply that, however inconceivable this kind of suspension of physical law is, it is a fact. physical laws are suspended any time an animate being moves any part of its body; the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life."(l) he goes on to maintain that, although it is true that his spirit is united with the matter in which it moves in a way in which the great spirit who acts on matter in the miracle is not, yet the action of god's spirit in the miracle of walking on the water is no more inconceivable than the action of his own spirit in holding up his own hand. "antecedently, one step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible. but this appearance of incredibility is answered in one case literally _ambulando_. how can i place any reliance upon it in the other?"( ) from this illustration, { } dr. mozley, with a haste very unlike his previous careful procedure, jumps at the following conclusions: "the constitution of nature, then, disproved the incredibility of the divine suspension of physical law; but more than this, it creates a presumption for it."(l) the laws of life of which we have experience, he argues, are themselves in an ascending scale. first come the laws which regulate unorganized matter; next the laws of vegetation; then the laws of animal life, with its voluntary motion; and above these again, the laws of moral being. a supposed intelligent being whose experience was limited to one or more classes in this ascending scale of laws would be totally incapable of conceiving the action of the higher classes. the progressive succession of laws is perfectly conceivable backward, but an absolute mystery forward. "analogy," therefore, when in this ascending series we arrive at man, leads us to expect that there is a higher sphere of law as much above _him_ as he is above the lower natures in the scale, and "supplies a presumption in favour of such a belief."( ) and so we arrive at the question whether there is or is not a god, a personal head in nature, whose free will penetrates the universal frame invisibly to us, and is an omnipresent agent. if there be, dr. mozley concludes, then, every miracle in scripture is as natural an event in the universe as any chemical experiment in the physical world.( ) this is precisely the argument of dr. mansel, regarding the "efficient cause," somewhat elaborated, but, however ingeniously devised, it is equally based upon assumption and defective in analogy. the "classes of { } law" to which the bampton lecturer refers work harmoniously side by side, regulating the matter to which they apply. unorganized matter, vegetation, and animal life, may each have special conditions modifying phenomena, but they are all equally subject to the same general laws. man is as much under the influence of gravitation as a stone is. the special operation of physical laws is less a modification of law than that law acting under different conditions. the law of gravitation suffers no alteration, whether it cause the fall of an apple or shape the orbit of a planet. the reproduction of the plant and of the animal is regulated by the same fundamental principle acting through different organisms. the harmonious action of physical laws, and their adaptability to an infinite variety of forms, constitute the perfection of that code which produces the order of nature.( ) the mere superiority of man over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not lift him above physical laws, and the analogy of every grade in nature forbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt from their control. if in animated beings, as is affirmed, we had the solitary instance of an "efficient cause" acting among the forces of nature, and possessing the power of initiation, this "efficient cause" produces no disturbance of physical law. its existence is as much a recognized part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature as the existence of a crystal or a plant; and although the character of the force exercised by it may not be clearly understood, its effects are regulated by the same laws as { } govern all other forces in nature. if "the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life" each time an animated being moves any part of its body, one physical law is counteracted in precisely the same manner, and to an equivalent degree, each time another physical law is called into action. the law of gravitation, for instance, is equally neutralized by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air. in each case, a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of the force employed. the arm that is raised by the animated being falls again, in obedience to law, as soon as the force which raised it is exhausted, quite as certainly as the weight descends when the magnetic current fails. this, however, is not the suspension of law in the sense of a miracle, but, on the contrary, is simply the natural operation upon each other of co-existent laws. it is a recognized part of the order of nature,( ) and instead of { } rendering credible any supernatural suspension of laws, the analogy of animated beings distinctly excludes it. the introduction of life in no way changes the relation between cause and effect, which constitutes the order of nature, and is the essence of its law. life favours no presumption for the suspension of law, but, on the contrary, whilst acting in nature, universally exhibits the prevalence and invariability of law. the "laws of life" may be subtle, but they are an integral portion of the great order of nature, working harmoniously with the laws of matter, and not one whit more independent of them than any one natural law is of another. the supposed "efficient cause," is wholly circumscribed by law. it is brought into existence by the operation of immutable physical laws, and from the cradle to the grave it is subject to those laws. so inseparably is it connected with matter, and consequently with the laws which regulate matter, that it cannot even become conscious of its own existence without the intervention of matter. the whole process of life is dependent on obedience to natural laws, and so powerless is this efficient cause to resist their jurisdiction, that, in spite of its highest efforts, it pines or ceases to exist in consequence of the mere natural operation of law upon the matter with which it is united, and without { } which it is impotent. it cannot receive an impression from without that is not conveyed in accordance with law, and perceived by an exquisitely ordered organism, in every part of which law reigns supreme; nor can it communicate from within except through channels equally ordered by law. a slight injury may derange the delicate mechanical contrivances of eye, ear, and vocal chords, and may further destroy the reason and paralyze the body, reducing the animated being, by the derangement of those channels to which physical law limits its action, to a mere smouldering spark of life, without consciousness and without expression. the "laws of life" act amongst the laws of matter, but are not independent of them, and the action of both classes of law is regulated by precisely the same principles. dr. mozley's affirmation, that _antecedently_ one step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible, does not help him. in that sense it follows that there is nothing that is not antecedently incredible, nothing credible until it has happened. this argument, however, while it limits us to actual experience, prohibits presumptions with regard to that which is beyond experience. to argue that, because a step on the ground and an ascent to heaven are antecedently alike incredible, yet as we subsequently make that step, therefore the ascent to heaven, which we cannot make, from incredible becomes credible, is a contradiction in terms. if the ascent be antecedently incredible, it cannot at the same time be antecedently credible. that which is incredible cannot become credible because something else quite different becomes credible. it is apparent that such an argument is vicious. experience comes { } with its sober wisdom to check such reasoning. we believe in our power to walk because we habitually exercise it: we disbelieve in bodily ascensions because all experience excludes them. the step is part of the recognised order of nature, and has none of the elements in it of the miraculous. but if we leap into the air on the brink of a precipice, belief in an ascent to heaven is shattered to pieces at the bottom to which the law of gravitation infallibly drags us. there is absolutely nothing in the constitution of nature, we may say, reversing dr. mozley's assertion, which does not prove the incredibility of a divine suspension of physical laws, and does not create a presumption against it. there is no instance producible, or even logically conceivable, of any power whose effects are opposed to the ultimate ruling of the laws of nature. the occurrence of anything opposed to those laws is incredible. dr. mozley has himself shown that miracles cannot be explained either by unknown connection with known law, or by reference to unknown law; and he renounces the explanation of "higher law." his distinction between the laws of nature and the "laws of the universe,"( ) by which he nevertheless endeavours to make a miracle credible, is one which is purely imaginary, and cannot affect us in our present position within the order of nature. we know of no laws of the universe differing from the laws of nature. so far as human observation can range, these laws alone prevail. for all practical purposes, therefore, such a distinction is futile, and belief is necessarily limited to the actual operation of natural laws. the occasional intervention of an unknown "efficient cause," producing the effects { } called "miracles"--effects which are not referrible to any known law--is totally opposed to experience, and such a hypothesis to explain alleged occurrences of a miraculous character cannot find a legitimate place within the order of nature. . the proposition with which dr. mozley commences these bampton lectures, and for which he contends to their close, is this: "that miracles, or visible suspensions of the order of nature for a providential purpose, are not in contradiction to reason."( ) he shows that, the purpose of miracles is to attest a supernatural revelation, which, without them, we could not be justified in believing. "christianity," he distinctly states, "cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human reason--a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation without the evidence of miracles."( ) out of this very admission he attempts to construct an argument in support of miracles: "hence it follows," he continues, "that upon the supposition of the divine design of a revelation, a miracle is not an anomaly or irregularity, but part of the system of the universe; because, though an irregularity and an anomaly in relation to either part, it has a complete adaptation to the whole. there being two worlds, a visible and invisible, and a communication between the two being wanted, a miracle is the instrument of that communication."( ) here, again, the argument is based upon mere assumption. { } the supposition of the divine design of a revelation is the result of a foregone conclusion in its favour, and is not suggested by antecedent probability. it is, in fact, derived solely from the contents of the revelation itself. divines assume that a communication of this nature is in accordance with reason, and was necessary for the salvation of the human race, simply because they believe that it took place. no attempt is seriously made independently to prove the reality of the supposed "divine design of a revelation." a revelation having, it is supposed, been made, that revelation is consequently supposed to have been contemplated, and to have necessitated and justified suspensions of the order of nature to effect it. the proposition for which the evidence of miracles is demanded is viciously employed as evidence for miracles. the circumstances upon which the assumption of the necessity and reasonableness of a revelation is based, however, are incredible, and contrary to reason. we are asked to believe that god made man in his own image, pure and sinless, and intended him to continue so, but that scarcely had this, his noblest work, left the hands of the creator, than man was tempted into sin by satan, an all-powerful and persistent enemy of god, whose existence and antagonism to a being in whose eyes sin is abomination are not accounted for and are incredible.( ) adam's fall brought a curse upon the earth, and incurred the penalty of death for himself and for the whole of his posterity. the human race, although created perfect and without sin, { } thus disappointed the expectations of the creator, and became daily more wicked, the evil spirit having succeeded in frustrating the designs of the almighty, so that god repented that he had made man, and at length destroyed by a deluge all the inhabitants of the earth, with the exception of eight persons who feared him. this sweeping purification, however, was as futile as the original design, and the race of men soon became more wicked than ever. the final and only adequate remedy devised by god for the salvation of his creatures, become so desperately and hopelessly evil, was the incarnation of himself in the person of "the son," the second person in a mysterious trinity of which the godhead is said to be composed, (who was conceived by the holy ghost, and born of the virgin mary,) and his death upon the cross as a vicarious expiation of the sins of the world, without which supposed satisfaction of the justice of god his mercy could not possibly have been extended to the frail and sinful work of his own hands. the crucifixion of the incarnate god was the crowning guilt of a nation whom god himself had selected as his own peculiar people, and whom he had condescended to guide by constant direct revelations of his will, but who, from the first, had displayed the most persistent and remarkable proclivity to sin against him, and, in spite of the wonderful miracles wrought on their behalf, to forsake his service for the worship of other gods. we are asked to believe, therefore, in the frustration of the divine design of creation, and in the fall of man into a state of wickedness hateful to god, requiring and justifying the divine design of a revelation, and such a revelation as this, as a preliminary to the further proposition that, on the supposition of such a design, miracles would not be contrary to reason. { } antecedently, nothing could be more absolutely incredible or contrary to reason than these statements, or the supposition of such a design. dr. mozley himself admits that, as human announcements, the doctrines of christianity would be the "wildest delusions," which we could not be justified in believing, and that such a scheme could not be maintained without miraculous evidence. the supposition of the divine design of the revelation is solely derived from the doctrines supposed to have been revealed, and, indeed, that design forms part of them. until they are proved to be divine truths, these statements must obviously be considered human announcements, and consequently they are antecedently incredible, and the "wildest delusions." as dr. mozley does not pretend that there is anything antecedently credible upon which he can base an assertion that there was actually { } any "divine design of a revelation," or that any "communication between the two worlds" was requisite, it is therefore clear that his argument consists merely of assumptions admitted to be antecedently incredible. it advances a supposition of that which is contrary to reason to justify supposed visible suspensions of the order of nature, which are also contrary to reason. incredible assumptions cannot give probability to incredible evidence- tertullian's audacious paradox: "credo quia impossible," of which such reasoning is illustrative, is but the cry of enthusiastic credulity. the whole theory of this abortive design of creation, with such impotent efforts to amend it, is emphatically contradicted by the glorious perfection and invariability of the order of nature. it is difficult to say whether the details of the scheme, or the circumstances which are supposed to have led to its adoption, are more shocking to reason or to moral sense. the imperfection ascribed to the divine work is scarcely more derogatory to the power and wisdom of the creator, than the supposed satisfaction of his justice in the death of himself incarnate, the innocent for the guilty, is degrading to the idea of his moral perfection. the supposed necessity for repeated interference to correct the imperfection of the original creation, the nature of the means employed, and the triumphant opposition of satan, are anthropomorphic conceptions totally incompatible with the idea of an infinitely wise and almighty being. the constitution of nature, so far from favouring any hypothesis of original perfection and subsequent deterioration, bears everywhere the record of systematic upward progression. not only is the assumption, that any revelation of the nature of ecclesiastical christianity was necessary, excluded upon { } philosophical grounds, but it is contradicted by the whole operation of natural laws, which contain in themselves inexorable penalties against natural retrogression, or even unprogressiveness, and furnish the only requisite stimulus to improvement.( ) the survival only of the fittest is the we venture to add a passage from mr. herbert spencer's "social statics," which we have met with for the first time since this work was published, in illustration of this assertion. mr. spencer affirms "the evanescence of evil" and the perfectibility of man, upon the ground that: "all evil results from the non-adaptation of constitution to conditions." after an elaborate demonstration of this, he resumes as follows: "if there be any conclusiveness in the foregoing arguments, such a faith is well founded. as commonly supported by evidence drawn from history, it cannot be considered indisputable. the inference that as adyancement has been hitherto the rule, it will be the rule henceforth, may be called a plausible speculation. but when it is shown that this adyancement is due to the working of a universal law; and that in virtue of that law it must continue until the state we call perfection is reached, then the advent of such a state is removed out of the region of probability into that of certainty. if any one demurs to this let him point out the error. here are the several steps of the argument. all imperfection is unfitness to the conditions of existence. this unfitness must consist either in having a faculty or faculties in excess; or in having a faculty or faculties deficient; or in both. a faculty in excess is one which the conditions of existence do not afford full exercise to; and a faculty that is deficient is one from which the conditions of existence demand more than it can perform. but it is an essential principle of life that a faculty to which circumstances do not allow full exercise diminishes; and that a faculty on which circumstances make excessive demands increases. and so long as this excess and this deficiency continue, there must continue decrease on the one hand, and growth on the other. finally all excess and all deficiency must disappear, that is, all unfitness must disappear; that is, all imperfection must disappear. thus the ultimate development of the ideal man is logically certain� as certain as any conclusion in which we place the most implicit faith; for instance, that all men will die. for why do we infer that all men will die p simply because, in an immense number of past experiences, death has uniformly occurred. similarly then as the experiences of all people in all times�experiences that are embodied in maxims, proverbs, and moral precepts, and that are illustrated in biographies and histories, go to prove that organs, faculties, powers, capacities, or whatever else we call them grow by use and diminish from disuse, it is inferred that they will continue to do so. and if this inference is unquestionable, then is the one above deduced from it--that humanity must in the end become completely adapted to its conditions-- unquestionable also. progress, therefore, is not an accident, but a necessity. instead of civilization being artificial, it is a part of nature; all of a piece with the development of the embryo or the unfolding of a flower. the modifications mankind have undergone, and are still undergoing, result from a law underlying the whole organic creation; and provided the human race continues, and the constitution of things remains the same, those modifications must end in completeness. as surely as the tree becomes bulky when it stands alone, and slender if one of a group; as surely as the same creature assumes the different forms of cart-horse and racehorse, according as its habits demand strength or speed; as surely as a blacksmith's arm grows large, and the skin of a labourer's hand thick; as surely as the eye tends to become long-sighted in the sailor, and shortsighted in the student; as surely as the blind attain a more delicate sense of touch; as surely as a clerk acquires rapidity in writing and calculation; as surely as the musician learns to detect an error of a semitone amidst what seems to others a very babel of sounds; as surely as a passion grows by indulgence and diminishes when restrained; as surely as a disregarded conscience becomes inert, and one that is obeyed active; as surely as there is any efficacy in educational culture, or any meaning in such terms as habit, custom, practice; so surely must the human faculties be moulded into complete fitness for the social state; so surely must the things we call evil and immorality disappear; so surely must man become perfect." social statics, stereotyped ed. , p. f. { } stern decree of nature. the invariable action of law of itself eliminates the unfit progress is necessary to existence; extinction is the doom of retrogression. the highest effect contemplated by the supposed revelation is to bring man into perfect harmony with law, and this is ensured by law itself acting upon intelligence. only in obedience to law is there life and safety. knowledge of law is imperatively demanded by nature. ignorance of it is a capital offence. if we ignore the law of gravitation we are dashed to pieces at the foot of a precipice, or are crushed by a falling rock; if we neglect sanatory law, we are destroyed by a pestilence; if we disregard chemical laws, we are poisoned by a vapour. there is not, in reality, a gradation of breach of law that is not followed by an equivalent gradation of punishment. civilization is nothing but the knowledge and observance of natural laws. the savage must learn them or be extinguished; the cultivated must observe them or die. the balance of moral and physical development cannot be deranged with impunity. in the spiritual as well as the physical sense only the fittest eventually can survive in the struggle for existence. there is, in fact, an absolute upward impulse to the whole human race supplied by the invariable operation of the laws of nature acting upon the common instinct of self-preservation. as, on the one hand, the highest human conception of infinite wisdom and power is derived from the universality and invariability of law, so that universality and invariability, on the other hand, exclude the idea of interruption or occasional suspension of law for any purpose whatever, and more especially for the correction of supposed original errors of design which cannot have existed, or for the attainment of objects already provided for in the order of nature. { } upon the first groundless assumption of a divine design of such a revelation follows the hypothetical inference that, for the purpose of making the communication from the unseen world, a miracle or visible suspension of the order or nature is no irregularity, but part of the system of the universe. this, however, is a mere assertion, and no argument an avowed assumption which is contrary to reason is followed by another which is contrary to experience. it is simply absurd to speak of a visible suspension of the order of nature being part of the system of the universe. such a statement has no meaning whatever within the range of human conception. moreover, it must be remembered that miracles--or "visible suspensions of the order of nature"--are ascribed indifferently to divine and to satanic agency. if miracles are not an anomaly or irregularity on the supposition of the divine design of a revelation, upon what supposition do satanic miracles cease to be irregularities? is the order of nature, which it is asserted is under the personal control of god, at the same time at the mercy of the devil? archbishop trench has, as usual, a singular way of overcoming the difficulty. he says:--"so long as we abide in the region of nature, miraculous and improbable, miraculous and incredible may be admitted as convertible terms. but once lift up the whole discussion into a higher region, once acknowledge something higher than nature, a kingdom of god, and men the intended denizens of it, and the whole argument loses its strength and the force of its conclusions.... he who already counts it likely that god will interfere for the higher welfare of men, who believes that there is a { } nobler world-order than that in which we live and move, and that it would be the blessing of blessings for that nobler to intrude into and to make itself felt in the region of this lower, who has found that here in this world we are bound by heavy laws of nature, of sin, of death, which no powers that we now possess can break, yet which must be broken if we are truly to live,--he will not find it hard to believe the great miracle, the coming of the son of god in the flesh, &c... and as he believes that greatest miracle, so will he believe all other miracles, &c."( ) in other words, if we already believe the premises we shall not find it difficult to adopt the conclusions--if we already believe the greatest miracle we shall not hesitate to believe the less--if we already believe the dogmas we shall not find it hard to believe the evidence by which they are supposed to be authenticated. as we necessarily do abide in the { } region of nature, in which dr. trench admits that miraculous and incredible are convertible terms, it would seem rather difficult to lift the discussion into the higher region here described without having already abandoned it altogether. { } chapter iii. reason in relation to the order of nature the argument of those who assert the possibility and reality of miracles generally takes the shape of an attack, more or less direct, upon our knowledge of the order of nature. to establish an exception they contest the rule. dr. mozley, however, is not content with the ordinary objections advanced by apologists but, boldly entering into the mazes of a delicate philosophical problem, he adopts sceptical arguments and seeks to turn the flank of the enemy upon his own ground. he conducts his attack with unusual force and ability. "whatever difficulty there is in believing in miracles in general," he says, "arises from the circumstance that they are in contradiction to or unlike the order of nature. to estimate the force of this difficulty, then, we must first understand what kind of belief it is which we have in the order of nature; for the weight of the objection to the miraculous must depend on the nature of the belief to which the miraculous is opposed."( ) dr. mozley defines the meaning of the phrase, "order of nature" as the _connection_ of that part of the order of nature of which we are ignorant with that part of it which we know, the former being expected to be such and such, _because_ the latter is. but how do we justify this expectation of { } _likeness?_ we cannot do so, and all our arguments are mere statements of the belief itself, he affirms, and not reasons to account for it. it may be said, e.g., that when a fact of nature has gone on repeating itself a certain time, such repetition shows that there is a permanent cause at work, and that a permanent cause produces permanently recurring effects. but what is there to show the existence of a permanent cause? nothing. the effects which have taken place show a cause at work to the extent of these effects, but not further. that this cause is of a more permanent nature we have no evidence. why then do we expect the further continuance of these effects.( ) we can only say: because we believe the future will be like the past. after a physical phenomenon has even occurred every day for years we have nothing but the past repetition to justify our certain expectation of its future repetition.( ) do we think it giving a reason for our confidence in the future to say that, though no man has had experience of what is future, every man has had experience of what was future? it is true that what is future becomes at every step of our advance what was future, but that which is now still future is not the least altered by that circumstance; it is as invisible, as unknown, and as unexplored as if it were the very beginning and the very starting-point of nature. at this starting-point of nature what would a man know of its future course? nothing. at this moment he knows no more.( ) what ground of reason, then, can we assign for our expectation that any part of the course of nature will the next moment be like what it has been up to this moment, i.e., for our belief { } in the uniformity of nature? none. it is without a reason. it rests upon no rational ground, and can be traced to no rational principle.( ) the belief in the order of nature being thus an "unintelligent impulse" of which we cannot give any rational account, dr. mozley concludes, the ground is gone upon which it could be maintained that miracles, as opposed to the order of nature, were opposed to reason. a miracle in being opposed to our experience is not only not opposed to necessary reasoning, but to any reasoning.( ) we need not further follow the bampton lecturer, as with clearness and ability he applies this reasoning to the argument of "experience," until he pauses triumphantly to exclaim: "thus step by step has philosophy loosened the connection of the order of nature with the ground of reason, befriending, in exact proportion as it has done this, the principle of miracles."( ) we need not here enter upon any abstract argument regarding the permanence or otherwise of cause: it will be sufficient to deal with these objections in a simpler and more direct way. dr. mozley, of course, acknowledges that the principle of the argument from experience is that "which makes human life practicable; which utilizes all our knowledge; which makes the past anything more than an irrelevant picture to us; for of what use is the experience of the past to us unless we believe the future will be like it?'( ) our knowledge in all things is relative, and there are sharp and narrow limits to human thought. it is therefore evident that, in the absence of absolute knowledge, our belief must be accorded to that of which we have { } more full cognizance rather than to that which is contradicted by all that we do know. it may be "irrational" to feel entire confidence that the sun will "rise" tomorrow, or that the moon will continue to wax and wane as in the past, but we shall without doubt retain this belief, and reject any assertion, however positive, that the earth will stand still to-morrow, or that it did so some thousands of years ago. evidence must take its relative place in the finite scale of knowledge and thought, and if we do not absolutely know anything whatever, so long as one thing is more fully established than another, we must hold to that which rests upon the more certain basis. our belief in the invariability of the order of nature, therefore, being based upon more certain grounds than any other human opinion, we must of necessity refuse credence to a statement supported by infinitely less complete testimony, and contradicted by universal experience, that phenomena subversive of that order occurred many years ago, or we must cease to believe anything at all. if belief based upon unvarying experience be irrational, how much more irrational must belief be which is opposed to that experience. according to dr. mozley, it is quite irrational to believe that a stone dropped from the hand, for instance, will fall to the ground. it is true that all the stones we ourselves have ever dropped, or seen dropped, have so fallen, and equally true that all stones so dropped as far back as historic records, and those still more authentic and ancient records of earth's crust itself go, have done the same, but that does not justify our belief, upon any grounds of reason, that the next stone we drop will do so. if we be told, however, that upon one occasion a stone so dropped, instead of falling to the ground, rose { } up into the air and continued there, we have only two courses open to us: either to disbelieve the fact, and attribute the statement to error of observation, or to reduce the past to a mere irrelevant picture, and the mind to a blank page equally devoid of all belief and of all intelligent reasoning. dr. mozley's argument, however, is fatal to his own cause. it is admitted that miracles, "or visible suspensions of the order of nature,"( ) cannot have any evidential force unless they be supernatural, and out of the natural sequence of ordinary phenomena. now, unless there be an actual order of nature, how can there be any exception to it? if our belief in it be not based upon any ground of reason,--as dr. mozley maintains, in order to assert that miracles or visible suspensions of that order are not contrary to reason,--how can it be asserted that miracles are supernatural? if we have no rational ground for believing that the future will be like the past, what rational ground can we have for thinking that anything which happens is exceptional, and out of the common course of nature? because it has not happened before? that is no reason whatever; because the fact that a thing has happened ten millions of times is no rational justification of our expectation that it will happen again. if the reverse of that which had happened previously took place on the ten million and first time we should have no rational ground for surprise, and no reason for affirming that it did not occur in the most natural manner. because we cannot explain its cause? we cannot explain the cause of anything. our belief that there is any permanent cause is a mere unintelligent impulse. we can only say that there is a cause { } sufficient to produce an isolated effect, but we do not know the nature of that cause, and it is a mere irrational instinct to suppose that any cause produces continuous effects, or is more than momentary. a miracle, consequently, becomes a mere isolated effect from an unknown cause, in the midst of other merely isolated phenomena from unknown causes, and it is as irrational to wonder at the occurrence of what is new, as to expect the recurrence of what is old. in fact, an order of nature is at once necessary, and fatal, to miracles. if there be no order of nature, miracles cannot be considered supernatural occurrences, and have no evidential value; if there be an order of nature, the evidence for its immutability must consequently exceed the evidence for these isolated deviations from it. if we are unable rationally to form expectations of the future from unvarying experience in the past, it is still more irrational to call that supernatural which is merely different from our past experience. take, for instance, the case of supposed exemption from the action of the law of gravitation, which archbishop trench calls "a lost prerogative of our race:"( ) we cannot rationally affirm that next week we may not be able to walk on the sea, or ascend bodily into the air. to deny this because we have not hitherto been able to do so is unreasonable; for, as dr. mozley maintains, it is a mere irrational impulse which expects that which has hitherto happened, when we have made such attempts, to happen again next week. if we cannot rationally deny the possibility, however, that we may be able at some future time to walk on the sea or ascend into the air, the statement that these phenomena have already occurred loses all its force, and such occurrences { } cease to be in any way supernatural. if, on the other hand, it would be irrational to affirm that we may next week become exempt from the operation of the law of gravitation, it can only be so by the admission that unvarying experience forbids the entertainment of such a hypothesis, and in that case it equally forbids belief in the statement that such acts ever actually took place. if we deny the future possibility on any ground of reason, we admit that we have grounds of reason for expecting the future to be like the past, and therefore contradict dr. mozley's conclusion; and if we cannot deny it upon any ground of reason, we extinguish the claim of such occurrences in the past to any supernatural character. any argument which could destroy faith in the order of nature would be equally destructive to miracles. if we have no right to believe in a rule, there can be no right to speak of exceptions. the result in any case is this, that whether the principle of the order of nature be established or refuted, the supernatural pretensions of miracles are disallowed. more than this, however, must inevitably be deduced from dr. mozley's reasoning. in denying, as he does, the doctrine of a permanent cause, dr. mozley must equally renounce, as without foundation in reason, the assumption of a permanent agent working miracles. not only do the supposed miracles, in the complete isolation of all effects, cease to be supernatural or even exceptional, but as it cannot be affirmed that there is any cause of a nature more permanent than its existing or known effects, it is obvious that miracles cannot be traced to an eternal being of permanent omnipotence. if dr. mozley, therefore, be understood to adopt this reasoning as his own, he has involved himself, in the { } necessary abandonment both of miracles as supernatural occurrences, and of a permanent and unlimited cause of miracles. if, on the other hand, he has merely snatched the sword of an adversary to turn it against him, he has unfortunately impaled himself upon the borrowed weapon. . throughout the whole of his argument against the rationality of belief in the order of nature, the rigorous precision which dr. mozley unrelentingly demands from his antagonists is remarkable. they are not permitted to deviate by a hair's breadth from the line of strict logic, and the most absolute exactness of demonstration is required. anything like an assumption or argument from analogy is excluded; induction is allowed to add no reason to bare and isolated facts; and the belief that the sun will rise to-morrow morning is, with pitiless severity, written down as mere unintelligent impulse. belief in the return of day, based upon the unvarying experience of all past time, is declared to be without any ground of reason. we find anything but fault with strictness of argument; but it is fair that equal precision should be observed by those who assert miracles, and that assumption and inaccuracy should be excluded. hitherto, as we have frequently pointed out, we have met with very little or nothing but assumption in support of miracles; but, encouraged by the inflexible spirit of dr. mozley's attack upon the argument from experience, we may look for similar precision from himself. { } proceeding, however, from his argument against the rationality of belief in the order of nature to his more direct argument for miracles, we are astonished to find a total abandonment of the rigorous exactness imposed upon his antagonists, and a complete relapse into assumptions. dr. mozley does not conceal the fact. "the peculiarity of the argument of miracles," he frankly admits, "is, that it begins and ends with an assumption; i mean relatively to that argument."( ) such an argument is no argument at all; it is a mere _petitio principii_, incapable of proving anything. the nature of the assumptions obviously does not in the slightest degree affect this conclusion. it is true that the statement of the particular assumptions may constitute an appeal to belief otherwise derived, and evolve feelings which may render the calm exercise of judgment more difficult, but the fact remains absolute, that an argument which "begins and ends with an assumption" is totally impotent. it remains an assumption, and is not an argument at all. { } notwithstanding this unfortunate and disqualifying "peculiarity" we may examine the argument. it is as follows: "we assume the existence of a personal deity prior to the proof of miracles in the religious sense; but with this assumption the question of miracles is at an end; because such a being has necessarily the power to suspend those laws of nature which he has himself enacted."( ) the "question of miracles," which dr. mozley here asserts to be at an end on the assumption of a "personal deity," is of course merely that of the _possibility_ of miracles; but it is obvious that, even with the precise definition of deity which is assumed, instead of the real "question" being at an end, it only commences. the power to suspend the laws of nature being assumed, the will to suspend them has to be demonstrated, and the actual occurrence of any such suspension, which, it has already been shown, is contrary to reason. the subject is, moreover, complicated by the occurrence of satanic as well as divine suspensions of the order of nature, and by the necessity of assuming a personal devil as well as a personal deity, and his power to usurp that control over the laws of nature, which is assumed as the prerogative of the deity, and to suspend them in direct opposition to god. the express ascription of miracles to the special intervention of a personal god is also, as we have seen, excluded by the scriptural admission that there are other supernatural beings capable of performing them. even dr. newman has recognized this, and, in a passage already quoted, he says: "for the cogency of the argument from miracles depends on the assumption, that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from god; which is not true, if they may be { } effected by other beings without his sanction."( ) the first assumption, in fact, leads to nothing but assumptions connected with the unseen, unknown and supernatural, which are beyond the limits of reason. dr. mozley is well aware that his assumption of a "personal" deity is not susceptible of proof;( ) indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an "assumption." he quotes the obvious reply which may be made regarding this assumption:--"everybody must collect from the harmony of the physical universe the existence of a god, but in acknowledging a god, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar doctrinal conception of a god. we see in the structure of nature a mind--a universal mind--but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. nature only does and only can inform us of mind _in_ nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. nature, therefore, can speak to the existence of a god in this sense, and can speak to the omnipotence of god in a sense coinciding with the actual facts of nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent supreme being. of a universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing, and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. and, therefore, that conception of a supreme being which represents him as a spirit { } independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-place external to nature to interrupt its order, is a conception of god for which we must go elsewhere. that conception is obtained from revelation which is asserted to be proved by miracles. but that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and, therefore, miracles cannot rest upon this doctrine of theism."( ) with his usual fairness, dr. mozley, while questioning the correctness of the premiss of this argument, admits that, if established, the consequence stated would follow, "and more, for miracles being thrown back upon the same ground on which theism is, the whole evidence of revelation becomes a vicious circle, and the fabric is left suspended in space, revelation resting on miracles and miracles resting on revelation."( ) he not only recognizes, however, that the conception of a person al" deity cannot be proved, but he distinctly confesses that it was obtained from revelation,( ) and from nowhere else, and these necessary admissions obviously establish the correctness of the premiss, and involve the consequence pointed out, that the evidence of revelation is a mere vicious circle. dr. mozley attempts to argue that, although the idea was first obtained through this channel, "the truth once possessed is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason."( ) why, then, does he call it an assumption? the argument by which he seeks to show that the conception is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason is: "we naturally attribute to the design of a personal being a contrivance which is directed to the existence of a personal being.... from personality { } at one end i infer personality at the other." dr. mozley's own sense of the weakness of his argument, however, and his natural honesty of mind oblige him continually to confess the absence of evidence. a few paragraphs further on he admits:--"not, however, that the existence of a god is so clearly seen by reason as to dispense with faith;"( ) but he endeavours to convince us that faith is reason, only reason acting under peculiar circumstances: when reason draws conclusions which are not backed by experience, reason is then called faith.( ) the issue of the argument, he contends, is so amazing, that if we do not tremble for its safety it must be on account of a practical principle, which makes us confide and trust in reasons, and that principle is faith. we are not aware that conviction can be arrived at regarding any matter otherwise than by confidence in the correctness of the reasons, and what dr. mozley really means by faith, here, is confidence and trust in a conclusion for which there are no reasons. it is almost incredible that the same person who had just been denying grounds of reason to conclusions from unvarying experience, and excluding from them the results of inductive reasoning--who had denounced as unintelligent impulse and irrational instinct the faith that the sun, which has risen without fail every morning since time began, will rise again to-morrow, could thus argue. in fact, from the very commencement of the direct plea for miracles, calm logical reasoning is abandoned, and the argument becomes entirely _ad hominem_. mere feeling is substituted for thought, and in the inability to be precise and logical, the lecturer appeals { } to the generally prevailing inaccuracy of thought.( ) "faith, then," he concludes, "is _unverified_ reason; reason which has not yet received the verification of the final test, but is still expectant." in science this, at the best, would be called mere "hypothesis," but accuracy can scarcely be expected where the argument continues: "indeed, does not our heart bear witness to the fact that to believe in a god"--i. e., a personal god --"is an exercise of faith?" &c.( ) it does not help dr. mozley that butler, paley, and all other divines have equally been obliged to commence with the same assumption; and, indeed, as we have already remarked, dr. mozley honestly admits the difficulty of the case, and while naturally making the most of his own views, he does not disguise the insecurity of the position. he deprecates that school which maintains that any average man, taken out of a crowd, who has sufficient common sense to manage his own affairs, is a fit judge, and such a judge as was originally contemplated, of the christian evidences;( ) and he says: "it is not, indeed, consistent with truth, nor would it conduce to the real defence of christianity, to underrate the difficulties of the christian evidence; or to disguise this characteristic of it, that the very facts which constitute the evidence of revelation have to be accepted by an act of faith themselves, before they can operate as a proof of that further truth."( ) such evidence is manifestly worthless. after all his assumptions, dr. mozley is reduced to the necessity of pleading: "a probable fact is a probable evidence. i may, therefore, use a miracle as evidence of a revelation, though { } i have only probable evidence for the miracle."( ) the probability of the miracle, however, is precisely what is denied, as opposed to reason and experience, and incompatible with the order of nature. a cause is, indeed, weak when so able an advocate is reduced to such reasoning. the deduction which is drawn from the assumption of a "personal" deity is, as we have seen, merely the possibility of miracles. "paley's criticism," said the late dean of st. paul's, "is, after all, the true one--'once believe that there is a god, and miracles are not incredible.'"( ) the assumption, therefore, although of vital importance in the event of its rejection, does not very materially advance the cause of miracles if established. we have already seen that the assumption is avowedly incapable of proof, but it may be well to examine it a little more closely in connection with the inferences supposed to be derivable from it. we must, however, in doing so carefully avoid being led into a metaphysical argument, which would be foreign to the purpose of this inquiry. in his bampton lectures on "the limit of religious thought," delivered in , dr. mansel, the very able editor and disciple of sir william hamilton, discussed this subject with great minuteness, and although we cannot pretend here to follow him through the whole of his singular argument--a theological application of sir william hamilton's philosophy--we must sufficiently represent it. dr. mansel argues: we are absolutely incapable of conceiving or proving the existence of god as he is; and so far is human reason from being able to { } construct a theology independent of revelation that it cannot even read the alphabet out of which that theology must be formed.( ) we are compelled, by the constitution of our minds, to believe in the existence of an absolute and infinite being; but the instant we attempt to analyse, we are involved in inextricable confusion.( ) our moral consciousness demands that we should conceive him as a personality, but personality, as we conceive it, is essentially a limitation; to speak of an absolute and infinite person is simply to use language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself.( ) this amounts simply to an admission that our knowledge of god does not satisfy the conditions of speculative philosophy, and is incapable of reduction to an ultimate and absolute truth.( ) it is, therefore, reasonable that we should expect to find that the revealed manifestation of the divine nature and attributes should likewise carry the marks of subordination to some higher truth, of which it indicates the existence, but does not make known the substance; and that our apprehension of the revealed deity should involve mysteries inscrutable, and { } doubts insoluble by our present faculties, while at the same time it inculcates the true spirit in which doubt should be dealt with by warning us that our knowledge of god, though revealed by himself, is revealed in relation to human faculties, and subject to the limitations and imperfections inseparable from the constitution of the human mind.( ) we need not, of course, point out that the reality of revelation is here assumed. elsewhere, dr. mansel maintains that philosophy, by its own incongruities, has no claim to be accepted as a competent witness; and, on the other hand, human personality cannot be assumed as an exact copy of the divine, but only as that which is most nearly analogous to it among finite things.( ) as we are, therefore, incapable on the one hand of a clear conception of the divine being, and have only analogy to guide us in conceiving his attributes, we have no criterion of religious truth or falsehood, enabling us to judge of the ways of god, represented by revelation,( ) and have no right to judge of his justice, or mercy, or goodness, by the standard of human morality. it is impossible to conceive an argument more vicious, or more obviously warped to favour already accepted { } conclusions of revelation:--as finite beings we are not only incapable of proving the existence of god, but even of conceiving him as he is; therefore we may conceive him as he is not. to attribute personality to him is a limitation totally incompatible with the idea of an absolute and infinite being, in which "we are compelled by the constitution of our minds to believe;" and to speak of him as a personality is "to use language to which no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself;" but, nevertheless, to satisfy supposed demands of our moral consciousness, we are to conceive him as a personality. although we must define the supreme being as a personality to satisfy our moral consciousness, we must not, we are told, make the same moral consciousness the criterion of the attributes of that personality. we must not suppose him to be endowed, for instance, with the perfection of morality according to our ideas of it; but, on the contrary, we must hold that his moral perfections are at best only analogous, and often contradictory, to our standard of morality. as soon as we conceive a personal deity to satisfy our moral consciousness, we have to abandon the personality which satisfies that consciousness, in order to accept the characteristics of a supposed revelation, to reconcile certain statements of which we must admit that we have no criterion of truth or falsehood enabling us to judge of the ways of god. now, in reference to the assumption of a personal deity as a preliminary to the proof of miracles, it must be clearly remembered that the contents of the revelation which miracles are to authenticate cannot { } have any weight. antecedently, then, it is admitted that personality is a limitation which is absolutely excluded by the ideas of the deity, which, it is asserted, the constitution of our minds compete us to form. it cannot, therefore, be rationally assumed. to admit that such a conception is false, and then to base conclusions upon it, as though it were true, is absurd. it is child's play to satisfy our feeling and imagination by the conscious sacrifice of our reason. moreover, dr. mansel admits that the conception of a personal deity is really derived from the revelation, which has to be rendered credible by miracles; therefore the consequence already pointed out ensues, that the assumption cannot be used to prove miracles. "it must be allowed that it is not through reasoning that men obtain the first intimation of their relation to the deity; and that, had they been left to the guidance of their intellectual faculties alone, it is possible that no such intimation might have taken place; or at best, that it would have been but as one guess, out of many equally plausible and equally natural."( ) the vicious circle of the argument is here again apparent, and the singular reasoning by which the late dean of st. paul's seeks to drive us into an acceptance of revelation is really the strongest argument against it. the impossibility of conceiving god as he is,( ) which is insisted upon, instead of being a { } reason for assuming his personality, or for accepting jewish conceptions of him, totally excludes such an assumption. this "great religious assumption"( ) is not suggested by any antecedent considerations, but is required to account for miracles, and is derived from the very revelation which miracles are to attest. "in nature and from nature," to quote words of professor baden powell, "by science and by reason, we neither have nor can possibly have any evidence of a _deity working_ miracles;--for that we must go out of nature and beyond science. if we could have any such evidence _from nature_, it could only prove extraordinary _natural_ effects, which would not be _miracles_ in the old theological sense, as isolated, unrelated, and uncaused; whereas no _physical_ fact can be conceived as unique, or without analogy and relation to others, and to the whole system of natural causes."( ) being, therefore, limited to reason for any feeble conception of a divine being of which we may be capable, and reason being totally opposed to the idea of an order of nature so imperfect as to require or permit repeated interference, and rejecting the supposition of arbitrary { } suspensions of law, such a conception of a deity as is proposed by theologians must be pronounced irrational and derogatory. it is impossible for us to conceive a supreme being acting otherwise than we actually see in nature, and if we recognize in the universe the operation of infinite wisdom and power, it is in the immutable order and regularity of all phenomena, and in the eternal prevalence of law, that we see their highest manifestation. this is no conception based merely upon observation of law and order in the material world, as dr. mansel insinuates,( ) but it is likewise the result of the highest exercise of mind. dr. mansel "does not hesitate to affirm with sir william hamilton "that the class of phenomena which requires that kind of cause we denominate a deity is exclusively given in the phenomena of mind; that the phenomena of matter, taken by themselves, do not warrant any inference to the existence of a god."( ) after declaring a supreme being, from every point of view, inconceivable by our finite minds, it is singular to find him thrusting upon us, in consequence, a conception of that being which almost makes us exclaim with bacon: "it were better to have no opinion of god at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of him; for the one is unbelief, the other is contumely."( ) dr. mansel asks: "is matter or mind the truer image of god?"( ) but both matter and mind unite in repudiating so unworthy a conception of a god, and in rejecting the idea of suspensions of law. in the words of spinoza: "from miracles { } we can neither infer the nature, the existence, nor the providence of god, but, on the contrary, these may be much better comprehended from the fixed and immutable order of nature;"( ) indeed, as he adds, miracles, as contrary to the order of nature, would rather lead us to doubt the existence of god.( ) six centuries before our era, a noble thinker, xenophanes of colophon, whose pure mind soared far above the base anthropomorphic mythologies of homer and hesiod, and anticipated some of the highest results of the platonic philosophy, finely said:-- "there is one god supreme over all gods, diviner than mortals, whose form is not like unto man's, and as unlike his nature; but vain mortals imagine that gods like themselves are begotten, with human sensations, and voice, and corporeal members;' so if oxen or lions had hands and could work iu man's fashion, and trace out with chisel or brush their conception of godhead, then would horses depict gods like horses, and oxen like oxen, each kind the divine with its own form and nature endowing."( ) he illustrates this profound observation by pointing out that the ethiopians represent their deities as black with flat noses, while the thracians make them blue-eyed with ruddy complexions, and, similarly, the medes and the persians and egyptians portray their gods like { } themselves.( ) the jewish idea of god was equally anthropomorphic; but their highest conception was certainly that which the least resembled themselves, and which described the almighty as "without variableness or shadow of turning," and as giving a law to the universe which shall not be broken.( ) . none of the arguments with which we have yet met have succeeded in making miracles in the least degree antecedently credible. on the contrary they have been based upon mere assumptions incapable of proof and devoid of probability. on the other hand there are the strongest reasons for affirming that such phenomena are antecedently incredible. dr. mozley's attack which we discussed in the first part of this chapter, and which of course was chiefly based upon hume's celebrated argument, { } never seriously grappled the doctrine at all. the principle which opposes itself to belief in miracles is very simple. whatever is contradictory to universal and invariable experience is antecedently incredible, and as that sequence of phenomena which is called the order of nature is established by and in accordance with universal experience, miracles or alleged violations of that order, by whatever name they may be called, or whatever definition may be given of their characteristics or object, are antecedently incredible. the preponderance of evidence for the invariability of the order of nature, in fact, is so enormous that it is impossible to credit the reality of such variations from it, and reason and experience concur in attributing the ascription of a miraculous character to any actual occurrences which may have been witnessed to imperfect observation, mistaken inference or some other of the numerous sources of error. any allegation of the interference of a new and supernatural agent, upon such an occasion, to account for results, in contradiction of the known sequence of cause and effect, is excluded by the very same principle, for invariable experience being as opposed to the assertion that such interference ever takes place as it is to the occurrence of miraculous phenomena, the allegation is necessarily disbelieved. apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but effective arguments of hume than to answer them, and where it is possible they dismiss them with a sneer, and hasten on to less dangerous ground. for instance, a recent hulsean lecturer, arguing the antecedent credibility of the miraculous, makes the following remarks: "now, as regards the inadequacy of testimony to establish a miracle, modern scepticism has not advanced { } one single step beyond the blank assertion. and it is astonishing that this assertion should still be considered cogent, when its logical consistency has been shattered to pieces by a host of writers as well sceptical as christian (mill's _logic_, ii., -- ). for, as the greatest of our living logicians has remarked, the supposed recondite and dangerous formula of hume--that it is more probable that testimony should be mistaken than that miracles should be true--reduces itself to the very harmless proposition that anything is incredible which is contrary to a complete induction. it is in fact a _flagrant petitio principii_, used to support a wholly unphilosophical assertion."( ) it is much more astonishing that so able a man as dr. farrar could so misunderstand hume's argument and so misinterpret and mis-state mr. mill's remarks upon it. so far from shattering to pieces the logical consistency of hume's reasoning, mr. mill substantially confirms it, and pertinently remarks that "it speaks ill for the state of philosophical speculation on such subjects" that so simple and evident a doctrine should have been accounted a dangerous heresy. it is, in fact, the statement of a truth which should have been universally recognized, and would have been so, but for its unwelcome and destructive bearing upon popular theology. mr. mill states the evident principle, that--"if an alleged fact be in contradiction, not to any number of approximate generalizations, but to a completed generalization grounded on a rigorous induction, it is said to be impossible, and is to be disbelieved totally." mr. mill continues.: "this last principle, simple and evident as it { } appears, is the doctrine which, on the occasion of an attempt to apply it to the question of the credibility of miracles, excited so violent a controversy. hume's celebrated doctrine, that nothing is credible which is contradictory to experience or at variance with laws of nature, is merely this very plain and harmless proposition, that whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is incredible."( ) he then proceeds to meet possible objections: "but does not (it may be asked) the very statement of the proposition imply a contradiction? an alleged fact according to this theory is not to be believed if it contradict a complete induction. but it is essential to the completeness of an induction that it should not contradict any known fact. is it not, then, a _petitio principii_ to say, that the fact ought to be disbelieved because the induction to it is complete? how can we have a right to declare the induction complete, while facts, supported by credible evidence, present themselves in opposition to it? i answer, we have that right whenever the scientific canons of induction give it to us; that is, whenever the induction can be complete. we have it, for example, in a case of causation in which there has been an _experimentum cruris_." it will be remarked that dr. farrar adopts mr. mill's phraseology in one of the above questions to affirm the reverse of his opinion. mr. mill decides that the proposition is not a _petitio principii_; dr. farrar says, as in continuation of his reference to mr. mill, that it is a flagrant _petitio principii_. mr. mill proceeds to prove his statement, and he naturally argues that, if observations or experiments have been repeated so often, and by so many persons, as to exclude all supposition of { } error in the observer, a law of nature is established; and so long as this law is received as such, the assertion that on any particular occasion the cause a took place and yet the effect b did not follow, _without any counteracting cause_, must be disbelieved. in fact, as he winds up this part of the argument by saying: "we cannot admit a proposition as a law of nature, and yet believe a fact in real contradiction to it. we must disbelieve the alleged fact, or believe that we were mistaken in admitting the supposed law."( ) mr. mill points out, however, that, in order that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation, the allegation must be not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect, but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause. "now, in the case of an alleged miracle, the assertion is the exact opposite of this. it is, that the effect was defeated, not in the absence, but in consequence of a counteracting cause, namely, a direct interposition of an act of the will of some being who has power over nature; and in particular of a being, whose will being assumed to have endowed all the causes with the powers by which they produce their effects, may well be supposed able to counteract them."( ) a miracle, then, is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect; it is merely a new effect supposed to be introduced by the introduction of a new cause; "of the adequacy of that cause _if present,_( ) there can be no doubt; and the only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle is the improbability that any such cause existed." mr. mill then continues, resuming his criticism on hume's argument: { } "all, therefore, which hume has made out, and this he must be considered to have made out, is that (at least in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural agencies, which leaves it always possible that some of the physical antecedents may have been hidden from us,) no evidence can prove a miracle to any one who did not previously believe the existence of a being or beings with supernatural power; or who believes himself to have full proof that the character of the being whom he recognizes is inconsistent with his having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question." mr. mill proceeds to enlarge on this conclusion. "if we do not already believe in supernatural agencies, no miracle can prove to us their existence. the miracle itself, considered merely as an extraordinary fact, may be satisfactorily certified by our senses or by testimony; but nothing can ever prove that it is a miracle: there is still another possible hypothesis, that of its being the result of some unknown natural cause: and this possibility cannot be so completely shut out as to leave no alternative but that of admitting the existence and intervention of a being superior to nature. those, however, who already believe in such a being have two hypotheses to choose from, a supernatural, and an unknown natural agency; and they have to judge which of the two is the most probable in the particular case. in forming this judgment, an important element of the question will be the conformity of the result to the laws of the supposed agent; that is, to the character of the deity as they conceive it. but, with the knowledge which we now possess of the general uniformity of the course of nature, religion, following in the wake of science, has been compelled to acknowledge the government of the universe as { } being on the whole carried on by general laws, and not by special interpositions. to whoever holds this belief, there is a general presumption against any supposition of divine agency not operating through general laws, or, in other words, there is an antecedent improbability in every miracle, which, in order to outweigh it, requires an extraordinary strength of antecedent probability derived from the special circumstances of the case."( ) mr. mill rightly considers that it is not more difficult to estimate this than in the case of other probabilities. "we are seldom, therefore, without the means (when the circumstances of the case are at all known to us) of judging how far it is likely that such a cause should have existed at that time and place without manifesting its presence by some other marks, and (in the case of an unknown cause) without having hitherto manifested its existence in any other instance. according as this circumstance, or the falsity of the testimony, appears more improbable, that is, conflicts with an approximate generalization of a higher order, we believe the testimony, or disbelieve it; with a stronger or weaker degree of conviction, according to the preponderance: at least until we have sifted the matter further."( ) this is precisely hume's argument weakened by the introduction of reservations which have no cogency. "we have wished to avoid interrupting mr. mill's train of reasoning by any remarks of our own, and have, therefore, deferred till now the following observations regarding his criticism on hume's argument. in reducing hume's celebrated doctrine to the very plain proposition that whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is incredible, mr. mill in no way { } diminishes its potency against miracles; and he does not call that proposition "harmless" in reference to its bearing on miracles, as dr. farrar evidently supposes, but merely in opposition to the character of a recondite and "dangerous heresy" assigned by dismayed theologians to so obvious and simple a principle. the proposition, however, whilst it reduces hume's doctrine in the abstract to more technical terms, does not altogether represent his argument. without asserting that experience is an absolutely infallible guide, hume maintains that--" a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. in such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. in other cases he proceeds with more caution, he weighs the opposite experiments: he considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgment, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call _probability_. all probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority. "(l) after elaborating this proposition, hume continues: "a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. why is it more than probable that all men must die; that lead { } cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them? nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happen in the common course of nature. it is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. but it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. there must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. and as an uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full _proof_, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof which is superior. the plain consequence is, (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish: and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force which remains after deducting the inferior.' when any one tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, i immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. i weigh the one miracle against the { } other; and according to the superiority which discover, i pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. if the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."( ) the ground upon which mr. mill admits that a miracle may not be contradictory to complete induction is that it is not an assertion that a certain cause was not followed by a certain effect, but an allegation of the interference of an adequate counteracting cause. this does not, however, by his own showing, remove a miracle from the action of hume's principle, but simply modifies the nature of the antecedent improbability. mr. mill qualifies his admission regarding the effect of the alleged counteracting cause, by the all-important words "if present;" for, in order to be valid, the reality of the alleged counteracting cause must be established, which is impossible, therefore the allegations fall to the ground. no one knows better than mr. mill that the assertion of a personal deity working miracles, upon which a miracle is allowed for a moment to come into court, cannot be proved, and, therefore, that it cannot stand in opposition to complete induction which hume takes as his standard. in admitting that hume has made out, that no evidence can prove a miracle to any one who does not previously believe in a being of supernatural power willing to work miracles, mr. mill concedes everything to hume, for his only limitation is based upon a supposition of mere personal belief in something which is not capable of proof, and which belief, therefore, is not { } more valid than any other purely imaginary hypothesis. the belief may seem substantial to the individual entertaining it, but, not being capable of proof, it cannot have weight with others, or in any way affect the value of evidence in the abstract. that mere individual belief, apart from proof, should thus be advanced in limitation of a logical principle, seems to us most unwarranted, and at the most it can only be received as a statement of what practically takes place amongst illogical reason ers. the assumption of a personal deity working miracles is, in fact, excluded by hume's argument, and, although mr. mill apparently overlooks the fact, hume has not only anticipated but refuted the reasoning which is based upon it. in the succeeding chapter on a particular providence and a future state, he directly disposes of such an assumption, but he does so with equal effect also in the essay which we are discussing. taking an imaginary miracle as an illustration, he argues: "though the being to whom the miracle is ascribed be in this case almighty, it does not, upon that account, become a whit more probable; since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a being, otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions in the usual course of nature. this still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony of men, with those of the violation of the laws of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likely and probable. as the violations of truth are more common in the testimony concerning religious miracles than in that concerning any other matter of fact, this must diminish very much the authority of the former testimony, and { } make us form a general resolution never to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be covered."( ) a person who believes anything contradictory to a complete induction merely on the strength of an assumption which is incapable of proof is simply credulous, but such an assumption cannot affect the real evidence for that thing. the argument of paley against hume is an illustration of the reasoning suggested by mr. mill. paley alleges the interposition of a personal deity in explanation of miracles, but he protests that he does not assume the attributes of the deity or the existence of a future state in order to _prove_ their reality. "that reality," he admits, "always must be proved by evidence. we assert only that in miracles adduced in support of revelation there is not such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount." his argument culminates in the short statement: "in a word, once believe that there is a god" (i.e., a personal god working miracles), "and miracles are not incredible."( ) we have already quoted hume's refutation of this reasoning, and we may at once proceed to the final argument by which paley endeavours to overthrow hume's doctrine, and upon which he mainly rests his case. "but the short consideration," he says, "which, independently of every other, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in mr. hume's conclusion, is the following: when a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case, and if it produces a false result, he is sure that there { } must be some mistake in the demonstration. now, to proceed in this way with what may be called mr. hume's theorem. if twelve men, whose probity and good sense i had long known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was impossible that they should be deceived; if the governor of the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess the imposture or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case; if this threat was communicated to them separately, yet with no different effect; if it was at last executed; if i myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burned, or strangled, rather than give up the truth of their account,--still, if mr. hume's rule be my guide, i am not to believe them. now i undertake to say that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or who would defend such incredulity."( ) it is obvious that this reasoning, besides being purely hypothetical, is utterly without cogency against hume's doctrine. in the first place, it is clear that no assertion of any twelve men would be sufficient to overthrow a law of nature, which is the result of a complete induction, and in order to establish the reality of a miracle or the occurrence on one occasion of an unprecedented effect, from any cause, not in accordance with natural law, no smaller amount of evidence would suffice than would serve to refute the complete induction. the allegation of such an intervening cause as a personal { } deity working miracles is excluded as opposed to a complete induction. so long as we maintain the law, we are necessarily compelled to reject any evidence which contradicts it. we cannot at the same time believe the contradictory evidence, and yet assert the truth of the law. the specific allegation, moreover, is completely prohibited by the scriptural admission that miracles are also performed by other supernatural beings in opposition to the deity. the evidence of the twelve men, however, simply amounts to a statement that they saw, or fancied that they saw, a certain occurrence in contradiction to the law, but that which they actually saw was only an external phenomenon, the real nature of which is a mere inference, and an inference which, from the necessarily isolated position of the miraculous phenomenon, is neither supported by other instances capable of forming a complete counter induction, nor by analogies within the order of nature. the bare inference from an occurrence supposed to have been witnessed by twelve men is all that is opposed to the law of nature, which is based upon a complete induction, and it is, therefore, incredible. if we proceed to examine paley's "simple case" a little more closely, however, we find that not only is it utterly inadmissible as a hypothesis, but that as an illustration of the case of gospel miracles it is completely devoid of relevancy and argumentative force. the only point which gives a momentary value to the supposed instance is the condition attached to the account of the miracle related by the twelve men, that not only was it wrought before their eyes, but that it was one "in which it was impossible that they should be deceived." now { } this qualification of infallibility on the part of the twelve witnesses is as incredible as the miracle which they are supposed to attest. the existence of twelve men incapable of error or mistake is as opposed to experience as the hypothesis of a miracle in which it is impossible for the twelve men to be deceived is contradictory to reason. the exclusion of all error in the observation of the actual occurrence and its antecedents and consequences, whose united sum constitutes the miracle, is an assumption which deprives the argument of all potency. it cannot be entertained. on the other hand, the moment the possibility of error is admitted, the reasoning breaks down, for the probability of error on the part of the observers, either as regards the external phenomena, or the inferences drawn from them, being so infinitely greater than the probability of mistake in the complete induction, we must unquestionably hold by the law and reject the testimony of the twelve men. it need scarcely be said that the assertion of liability to error on the part of the observers by no means involves any insinuation of wilful "falsehood or imposture in the case." it is quite intelligible that twelve men might witness an occurrence which might seem to them and others miraculous,--but which was susceptible of a perfectly natural explanation,--and truthfully relate what they believed to have seen, and that they might, therefore, refuse "with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case," even although the alternative might be death on a gibbet. this, however, would in no way affect the character of the actual occurrence. it would not convert a natural, though by them inexplicable, phenomenon into a miracle. their constancy in adhering to the account they had { } given would merely bear upon the truth of their own statements, and the fact of seeing them "one after another consenting to be racked, burned, or strangled, rather than give up the truth of their account," would not in the least justify our believing in a miracle. even martyrdom cannot transform imaginations into facts. the truth of a narrative is no guarantee for the correctness of an inference. it seems almost incredible that arguments like these should for so many years have been tolerated in the text-book of a university. as regards the applicability of paleys illustration to the gospel miracles, the failure of his analogy is complete. we shall presently see the condition of the people amongst whom these miracles are supposed to have occurred, and that, so far from the nature of the phenomena, and the character of the witnesses, supporting the inference that it was impossible that the observers could have been deceived, there is every reason for concluding with certainty that their ignorance of natural laws, their proneness to superstition, their love of the marvellous, and their extreme religious excitement, rendered them peculiarly liable to incorrectness in the observation of the phenomena, and to error in the inferences drawn from them. we shall likewise see that we have no serious and circumstantial accounts of those miracles from eye-witnesses of whose probity and good sense we have any knowledge, but that, on the contrary, the narratives of them which we possess were composed by unknown persons, who were not eyewitnesses at all, but wrote very long after the events related, and in that mythic period "in which reality melted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history." the proposition: "that { } there is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of these accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct," is made by paley the argument of the first nine chapters of his work, as the converse of the proposition, that similar attestation of other miracles cannot be produced, is of the following two. this shows the importance which he attaches to the point; but, notwithstanding, even if he could substantiate this statement, the cause of miracles would not be one whit advanced. we have freely quoted these arguments in order to illustrate the real position of miracles; and no one who has seriously considered the matter can doubt the necessity for very extraordinary evidence, even to render the report of such phenomena worthy of a moment's attention. the argument for miracles, however, has hitherto proceeded upon the merest assumption, and, as we shall further see, the utmost that they can do who support miracles, under the fatal disadvantage of being contradictory to uniform experience, is to refer to the alleged contemporaneous nature of the evidence for their occurrence, and to the character of the supposed witnesses. mr. mill has ably shown the serious misapprehension of so many writers against hume's "essay on miracles," which has led them to what he calls "the extraordinary conclusion, that nothing supported by credible testimony ought ever to be disbelieved."( ) in regard to historical facts, not contradictory to all { } experience, simple and impartial testimony may be sufficient to warrant belief, but even such qualities as these can go but a very small way towards establishing the reality of an occurrence which is opposed to complete induction.( ) it is admitted that the evidence requisite to establish the reality of a supernatural divine revelation of doctrines beyond human reason, and comprising in its very essence such stupendous miracles as the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, must be miraculous. the evidence for the miraculous evidence, which is scarcely less astounding than the contents of the revelation itself, must, logically, be miraculous also, for it is not a whit more easy to prove the reality of an evidential miracle than of a dogmatic miracle. it is evident that the resurrection of lazarus, for instance, is as contradictory to complete induction as the resurrection of jesus. both the supernatural religion, therefore, and its supernatural evidence labour under the fatal disability of being antecedently incredible. { } chapter iv. the age of miracles let us now, however, proceed to examine the evidence for the reality of miracles, and to inquire whether they are supported by such an amount of testimony as can in any degree outweigh the reasons which, antecedently, seem to render them incredible. it is undeniable that belief in the miraculous has gradually been dispelled, and that, as a general rule, the only miracles which are now maintained are limited to brief and distant periods of time. faith in their reality, once so comprehensive, does not, except amongst a certain class, extend beyond the miracles of the new testament and a few of those of the old,( ) and the countless myriads of ecclesiastical { } and other miracles, for centuries devoutly and implicitly believed, are now commonly repudiated, and have sunk into discredit and contempt. the question is inevitably suggested how so much can be abandoned and the remnant still be upheld. as an essential part of our inquiry into the value of the evidence for miracles, we must endeavour to ascertain whether those who are said to have witnessed the supposed miraculous occurrences were either competent to appreciate them aright, or likely to report them without exaggeration. for this purpose, we must consider what was known of the order of nature in the age in which miracles are said to have taken place, and what was the intellectual character of the people amongst whom they are reported to have been performed. nothing is more rare, even amongst intelligent and cultivated men, than accuracy of observation and correctness of report, even in matters of sufficient importance to attract vivid attention, and in which there is no special interest unconsciously to bias the observer. it will scarcely be denied, however, that in persons of fervid imagination, and with a strong natural love of the marvellous, whose minds are not only unrestrained by specific knowledge, but predisposed by superstition towards false conclusions, the probability of inaccuracy and exaggeration is enormously { } increased. if we add to this such a disturbing element as religious excitement, inaccuracy, exaggeration, and extravagance are certain to occur. the effect of even one of these influences, religious feeling, in warping the judgment, is admitted by one of the most uncompromising supporters of miracles. "it is doubtless the tendency of religious minds," says dr. newman, "to imagine mysteries and wonders where there are none; and much more, where causes of awe really exist, will they unintentionally mis-state, exaggerate, and embellish, when they set themselves to relate what they have witnessed or have heard;" and he adds: "and further, the imagination, as is well known, is a fruitful cause of apparent miracles."( ) we need not offer any evidence that the miracles which we have to examine were witnessed and reported by persons exposed to the effects of the strongest possible religious feeling and excitement, and our attention may, therefore, be more freely directed to the inquiry how far this influence was modified by other circumstances. did the jews at the time of jesus possess such calmness of judgment and sobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in accounts of marvellous occurrences, unwitnessed except by them, and limited to their time, which contradict all knowledge and all experience? were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free from superstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of events of such an astounding nature? and were they themselves sufficiently impressed with the exceptional character of { } any apparent supernatural and miraculous interference with the order of nature? let an english historian and divine, who will be acknowledged as no prejudiced witness, bear testimony upon some of these points. "nor is it less important," says the late dean milman, "throughout the early history of christianity, to seize the spirit of the times. events which appear to us so extraordinary, that we can scarcely conceive that they should either fail in exciting a powerful sensation, or ever be obliterated from the popular remembrance, in their own day might pass off as of little more than ordinary occurrence. during the whole life of christ, and the early propagation of the religion, it must be borne in mind that they took place in an age, and among a people, which superstition had made so familiar with what were supposed to be preternatural events, that wonders awakened no emotion, or were speedily superseded by some new demand on the ever-ready belief. the jews of that period not only believed that the supreme being had the power of controlling the course of nature, but that the same influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits, both good and evil. where the pious christian of the present day would behold the direct agency of the almighty, the jews would invariably have interposed an angel as the author or ministerial agent in the wonderful transaction. where the christian moralist would condemn the fierce passion, the ungovernable lust, or the inhuman temper, the jew discerned the workings of diabolical possession. scarcely a malady was endured, or crime committed, but it was traced to the operation of one of these myriad daemons, who watched every opportunity { } of exercising their malice in the sufferings and the sins of men."( ) another english divine, of certainly not less orthodoxy, but of much greater knowledge of hebrew literature, bears similar testimony regarding the jewish nation at the same period. "not to be more tedious, therefore, in this matter," (regarding the bath kol, a jewish superstition,)" let two things only be observed: i. that the nation, under the second temple, was given to magical arts beyond measure; and, ii. that it was given to an easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure."( ) and in another place: "it is a disputable case, whether the jewish nation were more mad with superstition in matters of religion, or with superstition in curious arts:--i. there was not a people upon earth that studied or attributed more to dreams than they. ii. there was hardly any people in the whole world that more used, or were more fond of, amulets, charms, mutterings, exorcisms, and all kinds of enchantments. we might here produce innumerable instances."( ) we shall presently see that these statements are far from being exaggerated. no reader of the old testament can fail to have been struck by the singularly credulous fickleness of the jewish mind. although claiming the title of the specially selected people of jehovah, the israelites exhibited a constant and inveterate tendency to forsake his service for the worship of other gods. the mighty "signs and wonders" which god is represented as incessantly working { } on their behalf, and in their sight, had apparently no effect upon them. the miraculous even then had, as it would seem, already lost all novelty, and ceased, according to the records, to excite more than mere passing astonishment. the leaders and prophets of israel had a perpetual struggle to restrain the people from "following after" heathen deities, and whilst the burden of the prophets is one grand denunciation of the idolatry into which the nation was incessantly falling, the verdict of the historical books upon the several kings and rulers of israel proves how common it was, and how rare even the nominal service of jehovah. at the best the mind of the jewish nation only after long and slow progression, attained the idea of a perfect monotheism, but added to the belief in jehovah the recognition of a host of other gods, over whom it merely gave him supremacy.( ) this is apparent even in the first commandment: "thou shalt have no other gods before me;" and the necessity for such a law received its illustration from a people who are represented as actually worshipping the golden calf, made for them by the complaisant aaron, during the very time that the great decalogue was being written on the mount by his colleague moses.( ) it is not, therefore, to be wondered at that, at a later period, and throughout patristic days, the gods of the greeks and other heathen nations were so far gently treated, that, although repudiated as deities, { } they were recognized as demons. in the septuagint version of the old testament, where "idols" are spoken of in the hebrew, the word is sometimes translated "demons;" as, for instance, psalm xcvi. is rendered: "for all the gods of the nations are demons."(l) the national superstition betrays itself in this and many other passages of this version, which so well represented the views of the first ages of the church that the fathers regarded it as miraculous. irenæus relates how ptolemy, the son of lagus, brought seventy of the elders of the jews together to alexandria in order to translate the hebrew scriptures into greek, but fearing that they might agree amongst themselves to conceal the real meaning of the hebrew, he separated them, and commanded each to make a translation. when the seventy translations of the bible were completed and compared, it was found that, by the inspiration of god, the very same words and the very same names from beginning to end had been used by them all.( ) the same superstition is quite as clearly expressed in the new testament. the apostle paul, for instance, speaking of things sacrificed to idols, says: "but (i say) that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to god; and i would not that ye should be partakers with { } demons. ye cannot drink the cup of the lord, and the cup of demons; ye cannot partake of the lord's table, and of the table of demons."(l) the apocryphal book of tobit affords some illustration of the opinions of the more enlightened jews during the last century before the commencement of the christian era.( ) the angel raphael prescribes, as an infallible means of driving a demon out of man or woman so effectually that it should never more come back, fumigation with the heart and liver of a fish.( ) by this exorcism the demon asmodeus, who from love of sara, the daughter of raguel, has strangled seven husbands who attempted to marry her,( ) is overcome, and flies into "the uttermost parts of egypt," where the angel binds him.( ) the belief in demons, and in the necessity of exorcism, is so complete that the author sees no incongruity in describing the angel raphael, who has been sent, in answer to prayer, specially to help him, as instructing tobias to adopt such means of subjecting demons. raphael is described in this book as the angel of healing,( ) the office generally assigned to him by the fathers. he is also represented as saying of himself that he is one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints to god.( ) { } there are many curious particulars regarding angels and demons in the book of enoch.( ) this work, which is quoted by the author of the epistle of jude,( ) and by some of the fathers, as inspired scripture,( ) was supposed by tertullian to have survived the universal deluge, or to have been afterwards transmitted by means of noah, the great-grandson of the author enoch.( ) it may be assigned to about a century before christ, but additions were made to the text, and more especially to its angelology, extending probably to after the commencement of our era.( ) it undoubtedly represents views popularly prevailing about the epoch in which we are interested. the author not only relates the fall of the angels through love for the daughters of men, but gives the names of twenty-one of them and of their leaders; of whom jequn was he who seduced the holy angels, and ashbeêl it was who gave them evil counsel and corrupted them.( ) a third, gadreel,( ) was he who seduced eve. he also taught to the children of men the use and manufacture of all murderous weapons, of coats of mail, shields, { } swords, and of all the implements of death. another evil angel, named pênêmuê, taught them many mysteries of wisdom. he instructed men in the art of writing with paper [--greek--] and ink, by means of which, the author remarks, many fall into sin even to the present day. kaodejâ, another evil angel, taught the human race all the wicked practices of spirits and demons,( ) and also magic and exorcism.( ) the offspring of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men were giants, whose height was ells;( ) of these are the demons working evil upon earth.( ) azazel taught men various arts: the making of bracelets and ornaments; the use of cosmetics, the way to beautify the eyebrows; precious stones, and all dye-stuffs and metals; whilst other wicked angels instructed them in all kinds of pernicious knowledge.( ) the elements and all the phenomena of nature are controlled and produced by the agency of angels. uriel is the angel of thunder and earthquakes; raphael, of the spirits of men; raguel is the angel who executes vengeance on the world and the stars; michael is set over the best of mankind, i.e., over the people of israel;( ) saraqâel, over the souls of the children of men, who are misled by the spirits of sin; and gabriel is over serpents and over paradise, and over the cherubim.( ) enoch is shown the mystery of all the operations of nature, and the action of the elements, and he describes the spirits which guide them, and control the thunder and lightning and the winds; the spirit of the seas, who curbs them with his might, or tosses them forth and scatters them through the mountains of the earth; the { } spirit of hoar frost, and the spirit of hail, and the spirit of snow. there are, in fact, special spirits set over every phenomenon of nature--frost, thaw, mist, rain, light, and so on.( ) the heavens and the earth are filled with spirits. raphael is the angel set over all the diseases and wounds of mankind, gabriel over all powers, and fanuel over the penitence and the hope of those who inherit eternal life.( ) the decree for the destruction of the human race goes forth from the presence of the lord, because men know all the mysteries of the angels, all the evil works of satan, and all the secret might and power of those who practise the art of magic, and the power of conjuring, and such arts.( ) the stars are represented as animated beings.( ) enoch sees seven stars bound together in space like great mountains, and flaming as with fire; and he inquires of the angel who leads him, on account of what sin they are so bound? uriel informs him that they are stars which have transgressed the commands of the highest god, and they are thus bound until ten thousand worlds, the number of the days of their transgression, shall be accomplished.( ) the belief that sun, moon, and stars were living entities possessed of souls was generally held by the jews at the beginning of our era, along with greek philosophers, and we shall presently see it expressed by the fathers. philo judaeus considers the stars spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection,( ) and that to them is granted lordship over other heavenly bodies, not absolute, but as viceroys under the supreme { } being.( ) we find a similar view regarding the nature of the stars expressed in the apocalypse,( ) and it constantly appears in the talmud and targums.( ) an angel of the sun and moon is described in the ascensio isaiae.( ) we are able to obtain a full and minute conception of the belief regarding angels and demons and their influence over cosmical phenomena, as well as of other superstitions current amongst the jews at the time of jesus,( ) from the talmud, targums, and other rabbinical sources. we cannot, however, do more, here, than merely glance at these voluminous materials. the angels are perfectly pure spirits, without sin, and not visible to mortal eyes. when they come down to earth on any mission, they are clad in light and veiled in air. if, however, they remain longer than seven days on earth, they become so clogged with the earthly matter in which they have been immersed that they cannot again ascend to the upper heavens.( ) their multitude is innumerable,( ) and new angels are every day created, who in succession praise { } god and make way for others.( ) the expression, "host of heaven," is a common one in the old testament, and the idea was developed into a heavenly army. the first gospel represents jesus as speaking of "more than twelve legions of angels."( ) every angel has one particular duty to perform, and no more; thus of the three angels who appeared to abraham, one was sent to announce that sarah should have a son, the second to rescue lot, and the third to destroy sodom and gomorrah.( ) the angels serve god in the administration of the universe, and to special angels are assigned the different parts of nature. "there is not a thing in the world, not even a little herb, over which there is not an angel set, and everything happens according to the command of these appointed angels."( ) it will be remembered that the agency of angels is frequently introduced in the old testament, and still more so in the septuagint version, by alterations of the text. one notable case of such agency may be referred to, where the pestilence which is sent to punish david for numbering the people is said to be caused by an angel, whom david even sees. the lord is represented as repenting of the evil, when the angel was stretching forth his hand against jerusalem, and bidding him stay his hand after the angel had destroyed seventy thousand men by the pestilence.( ) this theory of disease has prevailed until comparatively recent times. the names of many of the superintending angels are given, as, for instance: jehuel { } is set over fire, michael over water, jechiel over wild beasts, and anpiel over birds. over cattle hariel is appointed, and samniel over created things moving in the waters, and over the face of the earth; messannahel over reptiles, deliel over fish. ruchiel is set over the winds, gabriel over thunder and also over fire, and over the ripening of fruit, xuriel over hail, makturiel over rocks, alpiel over fruit-bearing trees, saroel over those which do not bear fruit, and sandalfon over the human race; and under each of these there are subordinate angels.( ) it was believed that there were two angels of death, one for those who died out of the land of israel, who was an evil angel, called samaël (and at other times satan, asmodeus, &c), and the other, who presided over the dead of the land of israel, the holy angel gabriel; and under these there was a host of evil spirits and angels.( ) the jews were unanimous in asserting that angels superintend the various operations of nature, although there is some difference in the names assigned to these angels.( ) the sohar on numbers states that "michael, gabriel, nuriel, raphael are set over the four elements, water, fire, air, earth."( ) we shall presently sec how general this belief regarding angels was amongst the fathers, but it is also expressed in the new testament. in the apocalypse there appears an angel { } who has power over fire,( ) and in another place four angels have power to hurt the earth and the sea.( ) the angels were likewise the instructors of men, and communicated knowledge to the patriarchs. the angel gabriel taught joseph the seventy languages of the earth.( ) it appears, however, that there was one language--the syriac--which the angels do not understand, and for this reason men were not permitted to pray for things needful, in that tongue.( ) angels are appointed as princes over the seventy nations of the world; but the jews consider the angels set over gentile nations merely demons.( ) the septuagint translation of deuteronomy xxxii. introduces the statement into the old testament. instead of the most high, when he divided to the nations their inheritance, setting the bounds of the people "according to the number of the children of israel," the passage becomes, "according to the number of the angels of god" [--greek--]. the number of the nations was fixed at seventy, the number of the souls who went down into egypt.( ) the jerusalem targum on genesis xi. , , reads as follows: "god spake to the seventy angels which stand before him: come, let us go down and confound their language that they may not understand each other. and the word of the lord appeared there (at babel), with the seventy angels, according to the seventy nations, and { } each had the language of the people which was allotted to him, and the record of the writing in his hand, and scattered the nations from thence over the whole earth, in seventy languages, so that the one did not understand what the other said."(l) michael was the angel of the people of israel,( ) and he is always set in the highest place amongst the angels, and often called the high priest of heaven.( ) it was believed that the angels of the nations fought in heaven when their allotted peoples made war on earth. we see an allusion to this in the book of daniel,( ) and in the apocalypse there is "war in heaven; michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought, and his angels."( ) the jews of the time of jesus not only held that there were angels set over the nations, but also that each individual had a guardian angel.( ) this belief appears in several places in the new testament. for instance, jesus is represented as saying of the children: "for i say unto you that their angels do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven."( ) again, in the acts of the apostles, when peter is delivered from prison by an angel, and comes to the house of his friend, they will not believe the maid who had opened the gate and seen him, but say: "it is his angel" [--greek--]. the passage in the epistle to the hebrews will likewise be remembered, where it is said of the angels: "are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for ministry on { } account of them who shall be heirs of salvation."( ) there was at the same time a singular belief that when any person went into the private closet, the guardian angel remained at the door till he came out again, and in the talmud a prayer is given for strength and help under the circumstances, and that the guardian angel may wait while the person is there. the reason why the angel does not enter is that such places are haunted by demons.( ) the belief in demons at the time of jesus was equally emphatic and comprehensive, and we need scarcely mention that the new testament is full of references to them.( ) they are in the air, on earth, in the bodies of men and animals, and even at the bottom of the sea.( ) they are the offspring of the fallen angels who loved the daughters of men.( ) they have wings like the angels, and can fly from one end of heaven to another; they obtain a knowledge of the future, like the angels, by listening behind the veil of the temple of god in heaven.( ) their number is infinite. the earth is so full of them that if man had power to see he could not exist, on account of them; there are more demons than men, and they are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a newly-made grave.( ) it is stated that each man has , demons at his right hand, and , on his left, and the passage continues: "the crush on the sabbath in the synagogue arises from them, also the dresses of the rabbins become so soon old and torn through their rubbing; in like manner they cause the tottering of the feet. he who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes and strew them about his bed, and in the morning he will perceive their footprints upon them like a cock's tread. if any one wish to see them, he must take the afterbirth of a black cat, which has been littered by a first-born black cat, whose mother was also a first-birth, burn and reduce it to powder, and put some of it in his eyes, and he will see them."(l) sometimes demons assume the form of a goat. evil spirits fly chiefly during the darkness, for they are children of night.( ) for this reason the talmud states that men are forbidden to greet any one by night, lest it might be a devil,( ) or to go out alone even by day, but much more by night, into solitary places.( ) it was likewise forbidden for any man to sleep alone in a house, because any one so doing would be seized by the she-devil lilith, and die.( ) further, no man should drink water by night on account of the demon schafriri, the angel of blindness.( ) { } an evil spirit descended on any one going into a cemetery by night.( ) a necromancer is defined as one who fasts and lodges at night amongst tombs in order that the evil spirit may come upon him.( ) demons, however, take more especial delight in foul and offensive places, and an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world.( ) demons haunt deserted places, ruins, graves, and certain kinds of trees.( ) we find indications of these superstitions throughout the gospels. the possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs, and being driven by the unclean spirits into the wilderness, and the demons can find no rest in clean places.( ) demons also frequented springs and fountains.( ) the episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons and trouble the water of the pool of bethesda, so that he who first stepped in was cured of whatever disease he had, may be mentioned here in passing, although the passage is not found in some of the older mss. of the fourth gospel,( ) and it is argued by some that it is a later interpolation. there were demons who hurt those who did not wash their hands before meat. "shibta is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands in the night; and if any touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit sits upon that food, and there is danger from it."( ) { } the demon asmodeus is frequently called the king of the devils,( ) and it was believed that he tempted people to apostatize; he it was who enticed noah into his drunkenness, and led solomon into sin.( ) he is represented as alternately ascending to study in the school of the heavenly jerusalem, and descending to study in the school of the earth.( ) the injury of the human race in every possible way was believed to be the chief delight of evil spirits. the talmud and other rabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession, but we need not enter into details upon this point, as the new testament itself presents sufficient evidence regarding it. not only one evil spirit could enter into a body, but many took possession of the same individual. there are many instances mentioned in the gospels, such as mary magdalene, "out of whom went seven demons" [--greek--], and the man whose name was legion, because "many demons" [--greek--] were entered into him.( ) demons likewise entered into the bodies of animals, and in the narrative to which we have just referred, the demons, on being expelled from the man, request that they may be allowed to enter into the herd of swine, which being permitted, "the demons went out of { } the man into the swine, and the herd ran violently down the cliff into the lake, and were drowned,"( ) the evil spirits, as usual, taking pleasure only in the destruction and injury of man and beast. besides "possession," all the diseases of men and animals were ascribed to the action of the devil and of demons.( ) in the gospels, for instance, the woman with a spirit of infirmity, who was bowed together and could not lift herself up, is described as "bound by satan," although the case was not one of demoniacal possession.( ) as might be expected from the universality of the belief in demons and their influence over the human race, the jews at the time of jesus occupied themselves much with the means of conjuring them. "there was hardly any people in the whole world," we have already heard from a great hebrew scholar, "that more used, or were more fond of, amulets, charms, mutterings, exorcisms, and all kinds of enchantments."( ) schoettgen bears similar testimony: "cæterum judoeos magicis artibus admodum deditos esse, notissimum est."( ) all competent scholars are agreed upon this point, and the talmud and rabbinical writings are full of it. the exceeding prevalence of such arts alone proves the existence of the grossest ignorance and superstition. { } there are elaborate rules in the talmud with regard to dreams, both as to how they are to be obtained and how interpreted.( ) fasts were enjoined in order to secure good dreams, and these fasts were not only observed by the ignorant, but also by the principal rabbins, and they were permitted even on the sabbath, which was unlawful in other cases.( ) indeed, the interpretation of dreams became a public profession.( ) it would be impossible within our limits to convey an adequate idea of the general superstition prevalent amongst the jews regarding things and actions lucky and unlucky, or the minute particulars in regard to every common act prescribed for safety against demons and evil influences of all kinds. nothing was considered indifferent or too trifling, and the danger from the most trivial movements or omissions to which men were supposed to be exposed from the malignity of evil spirits was believed to be great.( ) amulets, consisting of roots, or pieces of paper with charms written upon them, were hung round the neck of the sick, and considered efficacious for their cure. charms, mutterings, and spells were commonly said over wounds, against unlucky meetings, to make people sleep, to heal diseases, and to avert enchantments.( ) the talmud gives forms of enchantments against mad dogs, for instance, against the demon of blindness, and the like, as well as formulae for averting the evil eye, and { } mutterings over diseases.( ) so common was the practice of sorcery and magic that the talmud enjoins "that the senior who is chosen into the council ought to be skilled in the arts of astrologers, jugglers, diviners, sorcerers, &c, that he may be able to judge of those who are guilty of the same."( ) numerous cases are recorded of persons destroyed by means of sorcery.( ) the jewish women were particularly addicted to sorcery, and indeed the talmud declares that they had generally fallen into it.( ) the new testament bears abundant testimony to the prevalence of magic and exorcism at the time at which its books were written. in the gospels, jesus is represented as arguing with the pharisees, who accuse him of casting out devils by beelzebub, the prince of the devils. "if i by beelzebub cast out the demons [--greek--] by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore let them be your judges."( ) the thoroughness and universality of the jewish popular belief in demons and evil spirits and in the power of magic is exhibited in the ascription to solomon, the monarch in whom the greatness and glory of the nation attained its culminating point, of the character of a powerful magician. the most effectual forms of invocation and exorcism, and the most potent spells of magic, were said to have been composed by him, and thus the grossest superstition of the nation acquired the sanction of their wisest king. rabbinical writings are { } never weary of enlarging upon the magical power and knowledge of solomon. he was represented as not only king of the whole earth, but also as reigning over devils and evil spirits, and having the power of expelling them from the bodies of men and animals, and also of delivering people to them.( ) it was indeed believed that the two demons asa and asael taught solomon all wisdom and all arts.( ) the talmud relates many instances of his power over evil spirits, and amongst others how he made them assist in building the temple. solomon desired to have the help of the worm schamir in preparing the stones for the sacred building, and he conjured up a devil and a she-devil to inform him where schamir was to be found. they referred him to asmodeus, whom the king craftily captured, and by whom he was informed that schamir is under the jurisdiction of the prince of the seas, and asmodeus further told him how he might be secured. by his means the temple was built, but, from the moment it was destroyed, schamir for ever disappeared.( ) it was likewise believed that one of the chambers of the second temple was built by a magician called parvah, by means of magic.( ) the talmud narrates many stories of miracles performed by various rabbins.( ) the jewish historian, josephus, informs us that, amongst { } other gifts, god bestowed upon king solomon knowledge of the way to expel demons, an art which is useful and salutary for mankind. he composed incantations by which diseases are cured, and he left behind him forms of exorcism by which demons may be so effectually expelled that they never return, a method of cure, josephus adds, which is of great efficacy to his own day. he himself had seen a countryman of his own, named eliezer, release people possessed of devils in the presence of the emperor vespasian and his sons, and of his army. he put a ring containing one of the roots prescribed by solomon to the nose of the demoniac, and drew the demon out by his nostrils, and, in the name of solomon, and reciting one of his incantations, he adjured it to return no more. in order to demonstrate to the spectators that he had the power to cast out devils, eliezer was accustomed to set a vessel full of water a little way off, and he commanded the demon as he left the body of the man to overturn it, by which means, says josephus, the skill and wisdom of solomon were made very manifest.( ) jewish rabbins generally were known as powerful exorcisers, practising the art according to the formulae of their great monarch. justin martyr reproaches his jewish opponent, tryphon, with the fact that his countrymen use the same art as the gentiles, and exorcise with fumigations and charms [--greek--], and he shows the common belief in demoniacal influence "when he asserts that, while jewish exorcists cannot overcome demons by such means, or even by exorcising them in the name of their kings, prophets, or patriarchs, though he admits that they might do so if they adjured them in the name of the god of abraham, isaac, and { } jacob, yet christians at once subdued demons by exorcising them in the name of the son of god.( ) the jew and the christian were quite agreed that demons were to be exorcised, and merely differed as to the formula of exorcism. josephus gives an account of a root potent against evil spirits. it is called baaras, and is flame-coloured, and in the evening sends out flashes like lightning. it is certain death to touch it, except under peculiar conditions. one mode of securing it is to dig down till the smaller part of the root is exposed, and then to attach the root to a dog's tail. when the dog tries to follow its master from the place, and pulls violently, the root is plucked up, and may then be safely handled, but the dog instantly dies, as the man would have done had he plucked it up himself. when the root is brought to sick people, it at once expels demons.( ) according to josephus, demons are the spirits of the wicked dead; they enter into the bodies of the living, who die, unless succour be speedily obtained.( ) this theory, however, was not general, demons being commonly considered the offspring of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men. the jewish historian gives a serious account of the preternatural portents which warned the jews of the approaching fall of jerusalem, and he laments the infatuation of the people, who disregarded these divine denunciations. a star in the shape of a sword, and also a comet, stood over the doomed city for the space of a whole year. then, at the feast of unleavened bread, before the rebellion of the jews which preceded the war, at the ninth hour of the night a { } great light shone round the altar and the temple, so that for half an hour it seemed as though it were brilliant daylight. at the same festival other supernatural warnings were given. a heifer, as she was led by the high-priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the temple; moreover, the eastern gate of the inner court of the temple, which was of brass, and so ponderous that twenty men had much difficulty in closing it, and which was fastened by heavy bolts descending deep into the solid stone floor, was seen to open of its own accord, about the sixth hour of the night. the ignorant considered some of these events good omens, but the priests interpreted them as portents of evil. another prodigious phenomenon occurred, which josephus supposes would be considered incredible were it not reported by those who saw it, and were the subsequent events not of sufficient importance to merit such portents: before sunset, chariots and troops of soldieis in armour were seen among the clouds, moving about, and surrounding cities. and further, at the feast of pentecost, as the priests were entering the inner court of the temple to perform their sacred duties, they felt an earthquake, and heard a great noise, and then the sound as of a great multitude saying: "let us remove hence."(l) there is not a shadow of doubt in the mind of josephus as to the reality of any of these wonders. if we turn to patristic literature, we find, everywhere, the same superstitions and the same theories of angelic agency and demoniacal interference in cosmical phenomena. according to justin martyr, after god had made the world and duly regulated the elements and the rotation of the seasons, he committed man and all { } things under heaven to the care of angels. some of these angels, however, proved unworthy of this charge, and, led away by love of the daughters of men, begat children, who are the demons who have corrupted the human race, partly by magical writings [--greek--] and partly by fears and punishments, and who have introduced wars, murders, and other evils amongst them, which are ignorantly ascribed by poets to god himself.( ) he considers that demoniacs are possessed and tortured by the souls of the wicked dead,( ) and he represents evil spirits as watching to seize the soul at death.( ) the food of the angels is manna.( ) the angels, says clement of alexandria, serve god in the administration of earthly affairs.( ) the host of angels and of gods [--greek--] is placed under subjection to the logos.( ) presiding angels are distributed over nations and cities, and perhaps are also deputed to individuals,( ) and it is by their agency, either visible or invisible, that god gives all good things.( ) he accuses the greeks of plagiarizing their miracles from the bible, and he argues that if certain powers do move the winds and distribute showers, they are agents subject to god.( ) clement affirms that the son gave philosophy to the greeks by means of the inferior angels,( ) and argues that it is absurd to attribute it to the devil.( ) theophilus of antioch, on the other hand, says that the greek poets were inspired by demons.( ) athenagoras states, as one of the principal { } points of belief among christians, that a multitude of angels and ministers are distributed and appointed by the logos to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the universe and the things in it, and the regulating of the whole.( ) for it is the duty of the angels to exercise providence over all that god has created; so that god may have the universal care of the whole, but the several parts be ministered to by the angels appointed over them. there is freedom of will amongst the angels as among human beings, and some of the angels abused their trust, and fell through love of the daughters of men, of whom were begotten those who are called giants.( ) these angels who have fallen from heaven busy themselves about the air and the earth; and the souls of the giants,( ) which are the demons that roam about the world, work evil according to their respective natures.( ) there are powers which exercise dominion over matter, and by means of it, and more especially one, who is opposed to god. this prince of matter exerts authority and control in opposition to the good designed by god.( ) demons are greedy for sacrificial odours and the blood of the victims, which they lick; and they influence the multitude to idolatry by inspiring thoughts and visions which seem to come from idols and statues.( ) according to tatian, god made everything which is good, but the wickedness of demons perverts { } the productions of nature for bad purposes, and the evil in these is due to demons and not to god.( ) none of the demons have bodies; they are spiritual, like fire or air, and can only be seen by those in whom the spirit of god dwells. they attack men by means of lower forms of matter, and come to them whenever they are diseased, and sometimes they cause disorders of the body, but when they are struck by the power of the word of god, they flee in terror, and the sick person is healed.( ) various kinds of roots, and the relations of bones and sinews, are the material elements through which demons work.( ) some of those who are called gods by the greeks, but are in reality demons, possess the bodies of certain men, and then by publicly leaving them they destroy the disease they themselves had created, and the sick are restored to health.( ) demons, says cyprian of carthage, lurk under consecrated statues, and inspire false oracles, and control the lots and omens.( ) they enter into human bodies and feign various maladies in order to induce men to offer sacrifices for their recovery that they may gorge themselves with the fumes, and then they heal them. they are really the authors of the miracles attributed to heathen deities.( ) tertullian enters into minute details regarding angels and demons. demons are the offspring of the fallen angels, and their work is the destruction of the human race. they inflict diseases and other painful calamities upon our bodies, and lead astray our souls. from their { } wonderful subtleness and tenuity they find their way into both parts of our composition. their spirituality enables them to do much harm to men, for being invisible and impalpable they appear rather in their effects than in their action. they blight the apples and the grain while in the flower, as by some mysterious poison in the breeze, and kill them in the bud, or nip them before they are ripe, as though in some inexpressible way the tainted air poured forth its pestilential breath. in the same way demons and angels breathe into the soul and excite its corruptions, and especially mislead men by inducing them to sacrifice to false deities in order that they may thus obtain their peculiar food of fumes of flesh and blood. every spirit, whether angel or demon, has wings; therefore they are everywhere in a moment. the whole world is but one place to them, and all that takes place anywhere they can know and report with equal facility. their swiftness is believed to be divine because their substance is unknown, and thus they seek to be considered the authors of effects which they merely report, as, indeed, they sometimes are of the evil, but never of the good. they gather intimations of the future from hearing the prophets read aloud, and set themselves up as rivals of the true god by stealing his divinations. from inhabiting the air, and from their proximity to the stars and commerce with the clouds, they know the preparation of celestial phenomena, and promise beforehand the rains which they already feel coming. they are very kind in reference to the cure of diseases, tertullian ironically says, for they first make people ill, and then, by way of performing a miracle, they prescribe remedies either novel or contrary to common experience, and then, removing the cause, they are { } believed to have healed the sick.( ) if any one possessed by a demon be brought before a tribunal, tertullian affirms that the evil spirit, when ordered by a christian, will at once confess that he is a demon.( ) the fallen angels were the discoverers of astrology and magic.( ) unclean spirits hover over waters in imitation of the brooding (gestatio) of the holy spirit in the beginning, as, for instance, over dark fountains and solitary streams, and cisterns in baths and dwelling-houses, and similar places, which are said to carry one off (rapere), that is to say, by the force of the evil spirit.( ) the fallen angels disclosed to the world unknown material substances, and various arts, such as metallurgy, the properties of herbs, incantations, and interpretation of the stars; and to women specially they revealed all the secrets of personal adornment.( ) there is scarcely any man who is not attended by a demon; and it is well known that untimely and violent deaths, which are attributed to accidents, are really caused by demons.( ) those who go to theatres may become specially accessible to demons. there is the instance, the lord is witness (domino teste), of the woman who went to a theatre and came back possessed by a demon; and, on being cast out, the evil spirit replied that he had a right to act as he did, having found her within his limits. there was another case, also well known, of a woman who, at night, after having been to a theatre, had a vision of a { } winding sheet (linteum), and heard the name of the tragedian whom she had seen mentioned with reprobation and, five days after, the woman was dead.( ) origen attributes augury and divination through animals to demons. in his opinion certain demons, offspring of the titans or giants, who haunt the grosser parts of bodies and the unclean places of the earth, and who, from not having earthly bodies, have some power of divining the future, occupy themselves with this. they secretly enter the bodies of the more brutal and savage animals, and force them to make flights or indications of divination to lead men away from god. they have a special leaning to birds and serpents, and even to foxes and wolves, because the demons act better through these in consequence of an apparent analogy in wickedness between them.( ) it is for this reason that moses, who had either been taught by god what was similar in the nature of animals and their kindred demons, or had discovered it himself, prohibited as unclean the particular birds and animals most used for divination. therefore each kind of demon seems to have an affinity with a certain kind of animal. they are so wicked that demons even assume the bodies of weasels to foretell the future.( ) they feed on the blood and odour of the victims sacrificed in idol temples.( ) the spirits of the wicked dead wander about sepulchres and sometimes for ages haunt particular houses, and other places.( ) the prayers of christians drive demons out of men, and from places where they have { } taken up their abode, and even sometimes from the bodies of animals, which are frequently injured by them.( ) in reply to a statement of celsus that we cannot eat bread or fruit, or drink wine or even water without eating and drinking with demons, and that the very air we breathe is received from demons, and that, consequently, we cannot inhale without receiving air from the demons who are set over the air,( ) origen maintains, on the contrary, that the angels of god, and not demons, have the superintendence of such natural phenomena, and have been appointed to communicate all these blessings. not demons, but angels, have been set over the fruits of the earth, and over the birth of animals, and over all things necessary for our race.( ) scripture forbids the eating of things strangled because the blood is still in them, and blood, and more especially the fumes of it, is said to be the food of demons. if we ate strangled animals, we might have demons feeding with us,( ) but in origen's opinion a man only eats and drinks with demons when he eats the flesh of idol sacrifices, and drinks the wine poured out in honour of demons.( ) jerome states the common belief that the air is filled with demons.( ) chrysostom says that angels are everywhere in the atmosphere.( ) not content, however, with peopling earth and air with angels and demons, the fathers also shared the opinion common to jews( ) and heathen philosophers, that the heavenly bodies were animated beings. after fully discussing the question, with much reference to scripture, { } origen determines that sun, moon, and stars are living and rational beings, illuminated with the light of knowledge by the wisdom which is the reflection [--greek--] of eternal light. they have free will, and as it would appear from a passage in job (xxv. ) they are not only liable to sin, but actually not pure from the uncleanness of it. origen is careful to explain that this has not reference merely to their physical part, but to the spiritual; and he proceeds to discuss whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies or existed previously, and whether, at the end of the world, they will be released from their bodies or will cease from giving light to the world. he argues that they are rational beings because their motions could not take place without a soul. "as the stars move with so much order and method," he says, "that under no circumstances whatever does their course seem to be disturbed, is it not the extreme of absurdity to suppose that so much order, so much observance of discipline and method could be demanded from or fulfilled by irrational beings?"( ) they possess life and reason, he decides, and he proves from scripture that their souls were given to them not at the creation of their bodily substance, but like those of men implanted strictly from without, after they were made.( ) they are "subject to vanity" with the rest of the creatures, and "wait for the manifestation of the sons of god."( ) origen is persuaded { } that sun, moon, and stars pray to the supreme being through his only begotten son.( ) to return to angels, however, origen states that the angels are not only of various orders of rank, but have apportioned to them specific offices and duties. to raphael, for instance, is assigned the task of curing and healing; to gabriel the management of wars; to michael the duty of receiving the prayers and the supplications of men. angels are set over the different churches, and have charge even of the least of their members. these offices were assigned to the angels by god agreeably to the qualities displayed by each.( ) elsewhere, origen explains that it is necessary for this world that there should be angels set over beasts and over terrestrial operations, and also angels presiding over the birth of animals, and over the propagation and growth of shrubs, and, again, angels over holy works, who eternally teach men the perception of the hidden ways of god, and knowledge of divine things; and he warns us not to bring upon ourselves those angels who are set over beasts, by leading an animal life, nor those which preside over terrestrial works, by taking delight in fleshly and mundane things, but rather to study how we may approximate to the companionship of the archangel michael, to whose duty of presenting the prayers of the saints to god he here adds the office of presiding over medicine.( ) it is through the ministry of angels that the water-springs in fountains and running streams refresh the earth, and that the air we breathe is { } kept pure.( ) in the "pastor" of hermas, a work quoted by the fathers as inspired scripture, which was publicly read in the churches, which almost secured a permanent place in the new testament canon, and which appears after the canonical books in the codex sinaiticus, the oldest extant ms. of the new testament, mention is made of an angel who has rule over beasts, and whose name is hegrin.( ) jerome also quotes an apocryphal work in which an angel of similar name is said to be set over reptiles, and in which fishes, trees, and beasts are assigned to the care of particular angels.( ) clement of alexandria mentions without dissent the prevailing belief that hail-storms, tempests, and similar phenomena do not occur merely from material disturbance, but also are caused by the anger of demons and evil angels.( ) origen states that while angels superintend all the phenomena of nature, and control what is appointed for our good, famine, the blighting of vines and fruit trees, and the destruction of beasts and of men, are, on the other hand, the personal works( ) of demons, they, as public executioners, receiving at certain times authority to carry into effect divine decrees.( ) "we have already quoted similar views expressed by tertullian,( ) and the universality and permanence of such opinions may be illustrated by the fact that, after the lapse of many centuries, we find st. thomas aquinas as solemnly affirming that disease and tempests are the direct work of the devil;( ) indeed, this belief prevailed { } throughout the middle ages until very recent times. the apostle peter, in the recognitions of clement, informs clement that when god made the world he appointed chiefs over the various creatures, even over the trees and the mountains and springs and rivers, and over everything in the universe. an angel was set over the angels, a spirit over spirits, a star over the stars, a demon over the demons, and so on.( ) he provided different offices for all his creatures, whether good or bad,( ) but certain angels having left the course of their proper order, led men into sin and taught them that demons could, by magical invocations, be made to obey man.( ) ham was the discoverer of the art of magic.( ) astrologers suppose that evils happen in consequence of the motions of the heavenly bodies, and represent certain climacteric periods as dangerous, not knowing that it is not the course of the stars, but the action of demons that regulates these things.( ) god has committed the superintendence of the seventy-two nations into which he has divided the earth to as many angels.( ) demons insinuate themselves into the bodies of men, and force them to fulfil their desires;( ) they sometimes appear visibly to men, and by threats or promises endeavour to lead them into error; they can transform themselves into whatever forms they please.( ) the distinction between what is spoken by the true god through the prophets or by visions, and that which is delivered by demons, is this: that what proceeds from the former is always true, whereas that which is foretold by demons is not always true.( ) lactantius says that when the { } number of men began to increase, fearing that the devil should corrupt or destroy them, god sent angels to protect and instruct the human race, but the angels themselves fell beneath his wiles, and from being angels they became the satellites and ministers of satan. the offspring of these fallen angels are unclean spirits, authors of all the evils which are done, and the devil is their chief. they are acquainted with the future, but nob completely. the art of the magi is altogether supported by these demons, and at their invocation they deceive men with lying tricks, making men think they see things which do not exist. these contaminated spirits wander over all the earth, and console themselves by the destruction of men. they fill every place with frauds and deceits, for they adhere to individuals, and occupy whole houses, and assume the name of genii, as demons are called in the latin language, and make men worship them. on account of their tenuity and impalpability they insinuate themselves into the bodies of men, and through their _viscera_ injure their health, excite diseases, terrify their souls with dreams, agitate their minds with phrensies, so that they may by these evils drive men to seek their aid.( ) being adjured in the name of god, however, they leave the bodies of the possessed, uttering the greatest howling, and crying out that they are beaten, or are on fire.( ) these demons are the inventors of astrology, divination, oracles, necromancy, and the art of magic.( ) the universe is governed by god through the medium of angels. the demons have a fore-knowledge of the purposes of god, from having been his { } ministers, and interposing in what is being done, they ascribe the credit to themselves.( ) the sign of the cross is a terror to demons, and at the sight of it they flee from the bodies of men. when sacrifices are being offered to the gods, if one be present who bears on his forehead the sign of the cross, the sacred rites are not propitious (_sacra nullo modo litant_), and the oracle gives no reply.( ) eusebius, like all the fathers, represents the gods of the greeks and other heathen nations as merely wicked demons. demons, he says, whether they circulate in the dark and heavy atmosphere which encircles our sphere, or inhabit the cavernous dwellings which exist within it, find charms only in tombs and in the sepulchres of the dead, and in impure and unclean places. they delight in the blood of animals, and in the putrid exhalations which rise from their bodies, as well as in earthly vapours. their leaders, whether as inhabitants of the upper regions of the atmosphere, or plunged in the abyss of hell, having discovered that the human race had deified and offered sacrifices to men who were dead, promoted the delusion in order to savour the blood which flowed.and the fumes of the burning flesh. they deceived men by the motions conveyed to idols and statues, by the oracles they delivered, and by healing diseases, with which, by the power inherent in their nature, they had before invisibly smitten bodies, and which they removed by ceasing to torture them. these demons first introduced magic amongst men.( ) we may here refer to the account of a miracle which eusebius seriously quotes, as exemplifying another occasional { } function of the angels. the heretical bishop natalius having in vain been admonished by god in dreams, was at last lashed through the whole of a night by holy angels, till he was brought to repentance, and, clad in sackcloth and covered with ashes, he at length threw himself at the feet of zephyrinus, then bishop of rome, pointing to the marks of the scourges which he had received from the angels, and implored to be again received into communion with the church.( ) augustine says that demons inhabit the atmosphere as in a prison, and deceive men, persuading them by their wonderful and false signs, or doings, or predictions, that they are gods.( ) he considers the origin of their name in the sacred scriptures worthy of notice: they are called [--greek--] in greek on account of their knowledge.( ) by their experience of certain signs which are hidden from us, they can read much more of the future, and sometimes even announce beforehand what they intend to do. speaking of his own time, and with strong expressions of assurance, augustine says that not only scripture testifies that angels have appeared to men with bodies which could not only be seen but felt, but what is more, it is a general report, and many have personal experience of it, or have learned it from those who have knowledge of the fact, and of whose truth there is no doubt, that satyrs and fauns, generally called "incubi," have frequently perpetrated their peculiar wickedness;( ) and also that certain demons called by the gauls _dusii_ every day attempt and effect the same uncleanness, as { } witnesses equally numerous and trustworthy assert, so that it would be impertinence to deny it.( ) lactantius, again, ridicules the idea that there can be antipodes, and he can scarcely credit that there can be any one so silly as to believe that there are men whose feet are higher than their heads, or that grain and trees grow downwards, and rain, snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth. after jesting at those who hold such ridiculous views, he points out that their blunders arise from supposing that the heaven is round, and the world, consequently, round like a ball, and enclosed within it. but if that were the case, it must present the same appearance to all parts of heaven, with mountains, plains, and seas, and consequently there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and animals. lactantius does not know what to say to those who, having fallen into such an error, persevere in their folly (_stultitia_), and defend one vain thing by another, but sometimes he supposes that they philosophize in jest, or knowingly defend falsehoods to display their ingenuity. space alone prevents his proving that it is impossible for heaven to be below the earth.( ) st. augustine, with equal boldness, declares that the stories told about the antipodes, that is to say, that there are men whose feet are against our footsteps, and upon whom the sun rises when it sets to us, are not to be believed. such an assertion is not supported by any historical evidence, { } but rests upon mere conjecture based on the rotundity of the earth. but those who maintain such a theory do not consider that even if the earth be round, it does not follow that the opposite side is not covered with water. besides, if it be not, why should it be inhabited, seeing that on the one hand it is in no way possible that the scriptures can lie, and on the other, it is too absurd (_nimisque absurdum est_) to affirm that any men can have traversed such an immensity of ocean to establish the human race there from that one first man adam.( ) clement of rome had no doubt of the truth of the story of the phoenix,( ) that wonderful bird of arabia and the adjoining countries, which lives years; at the end of which time, its dissolution being at hand, it builds a nest of spices, in which it dies. from the decaying flesh, however, a worm is generated, which being strengthened by the juices of the bird, produces feathers and is transformed into a phoenix. clement adds that it then flies away with the nest containing the bones of its defunct parent to the city of heliopolis in egypt, and in full daylight, and in the sight of all men, it lays them on the altar of the sun. on examining their registers, the priests find that the bird has returned precisely at the completion of the years. this bird, clement considers, is an emblem of the resurrection.( ) so does tertullian, who repeats the story with equal confidence.( ) it is likewise referred to in the apostolic constitutions.( ) celsus quotes the narrative in his work against christianity as an instance of the piety of irrational creatures, and although origen, in reply, while admitting that the story is indeed recorded, puts in a cautious "if it be true," he proceeds to account for the phenomenon on the ground that god may have made this isolated creature, in order that men might admire, not the bird, but its creator.( ) cyril of jerusalem, likewise, quotes the story from clement.( ) the author of the almost canonical epistle of barnabas, explaining the typical meaning of the code of moses regarding clean and unclean animals which were or were not to be eaten, states as a fact that the hare annually increases the number of its _foramina_, for it has as many as the years it lives.( ) he also mentions that the hyena changes its sex every year, being alternately male and female.( ) tertullian also points out as a recognized fact the annual change of sex of the hyena, and he adds: "i do not mention the stag, since itself is the witness of its own age; feeding on the serpent it languishes into youth from the working of the poison."( ) the geocentric { } theory of the church, which elevated man into the supreme place in the universe, and considered creation in general to be solely for his use, naturally led to the misinterpretation of all cosmical phenomena. such spectacles as eclipses and comets were universally regarded as awful portents of impending evil, signs of god's anger, and forerunners of national calamities.( ) we have already referred to the account given by josephus of the portents which were supposed to announce the coming destruction of the holy city, amongst which were a star shaped like a sword, a comet, and other celestial phenomena. volcanoes were considered openings into hell, and not only does ter-tullian hold them to be so, but he asks who will not deem these punishments sometimes inflicted upon mountains as examples of the judgments which menace the wicked.( ) chapter v. the permanent stream of miraculous pretension we have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions and superstitions prevalent at the time of jesus, and when the books of the new testament were written. these, as we have seen, continued with little or no modification throughout the first centuries of our era. it must, however, be remembered that the few details we have given, omitting most of the grosser particulars, are the views deliberately expressed by the most educated and intelligent part of the community, and that it would have required infinitely darker colours adequately to have portrayed the dense ignorance and superstition of the mass of the jews. it is impossible to receive the report of supposed marvellous occurrences from an age and people like this without the gravest suspicion. even so thorough a defender of miracles as dr. newman admits that: "witnesses must be not only honest, but competent also; that is, such as have ascertained the facts which they attest, or who report after examination;"l and although the necessities of his case oblige him to assert that "the testimony of men of science and general knowledge" must not be required, he admits, under the head of "deficiency of examination," that--"enthusiasm, ignorance, and habitual credulity { } are defects which no number of witnesses removes."( ) we have shown how rank were these "defects" at the commencement of the christian era, and among the chief witnesses for christianity. miracles which spring from such a hot-bed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be objects of surprise and, in losing their exceptional character, their claims upon attention are proportionately weakened if not altogether destroyed. preternatural interference with the affairs of life and the phenomena of nature was the rule in those days, not the exception, and miracles, in fact, had lost all novelty, and through familiarity had become degraded into mere commonplace. the gospel miracles were not original in their character, but were substantially mere repetitions of similar wonders well known amongst the jews, or commonly supposed to be of daily occurrence even at that time. in fact, the idea of such miracles, in such an age and performed amongst such a people, as the attestation of a supernatural revelation, may with singular propriety be ascribed to the mind of that period, but can scarcely be said to bear any traces of the divine. indeed, anticipating for a moment a part of our subject regarding which we shall have more to say hereafter, we may remark that, so far from being original either in its evidence or form, almost every religion which has been taught in the world has claimed the same divine character as christianity, and has surrounded the person and origin of its central figure with the same supernatural mystery. even the great heroes of history, long before our era, had their immaculate conception and miraculous birth. there can be no doubt that the writers of the new testament shared the popular superstitions of the jews. { } we have already given more than one instance of this, and now we have only to refer for a moment to one class of these superstitions, the belief in demoniacal possession and origin of disease, involving clearly both the existence of demons and their power over the human race. it would be an insult to the understanding of those who are considering this question to pause here to prove that the historical books of the new testament speak in the clearest and most unmistakable terms of actual demoniacal possession. now, what has become of this theory of disease? the archbishop of dublin is probably the only one who asserts the reality of demoniacal possession formerly and at the present day,( ) and in this we must say that he is consistent. dean milman, on the other hand, who spoke with the enlightenment of the th century, "has no scruple in avowing _his_ opinion on the subject of demoniacs to be that of joseph mede, lardner, dr. mead, paley, and all the learned modern writers. it was a kind of insanity.... and nothing was more probable than that lunacy should take the turn and speak the language of the prevailing superstition of the times."( ) the dean, as well as "all the learned modern writers" to whom he refers, felt the difficulty, but in seeking to evade it they sacrifice the gospels. they overlook the fact that the writers of these narratives not only themselves adopt "the prevailing superstition of the times," but represent jesus as doing so with equal completeness. there is no possibility, for instance, of evading such statements as those in the miracle of the country of the gadarenes, where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognized that, { } on being cast out of the man, they are represented as requesting to be allowed to go into the herd of swine, and being permitted by jesus to do so, the entry of the demons into the swine is at once signalized by the herd running violently down the cliff into the lake, and being drowned.( ) archbishop trench adopts no such ineffectual evasion, but rightly objects: "our lord himself uses language which is not reconcilable with any such explanation. he everywhere speaks of demoniacs not as persons of disordered intellects, but as subjects and thralls of an alien spiritual might; he addresses the evil spirit as distinct from the man: 'hold thy peace and come out of him;'" and he concludes that "our idea of christ's absolute veracity, apart from the value of the truth which he communicated, forbids us to suppose that he could have spoken as he did, being perfectly aware all the while that there was no corresponding reality to justify the language which he used."( ) the dean, on the other hand, finds "a very strong reason," which he does not remember to have seen urged with sufficient force, "which may have contributed to induce our lord to adopt the current language on the point. the disbelief in these spiritual influences was one of the characteristics of the unpopular sect of the sadducees. a departure from the common language, or the endeavour to correct this inveterate error, would have raised an immediate outcry against him from his watchful and malignant adversaries as an unbelieving sadducec."( ) such ascription of politic { } deception for the sake of popularity might be intelligible in an ordinary case, but when referred to the central personage of a divine revelation, who is said to be god incarnate, it is perfectly astounding. the archbishop, however, rightly deems that if jesus knew that the jewish belief in demoniacal possession was baseless, and that satan did not exercise such power over the bodies or spirits of men, there would be in such language "that absence of agreement between thoughts and words in which the essence of a lie consists."( ) it is difficult to say whether the dilemma of the dean or of the archbishop is the greater,--the one obliged to sacrifice the moral character of jesus, in order to escape the admission for christianity of untenable superstition, the other obliged to adopt the superstition in order to support the veracity of the language. at least the course of the archbishop is consistent and worthy of respect. the attempt to eliminate the superstitious diagnosis of the disease, and yet to preserve intact the miraculous cure, is quite ineffectual. dr. trench anticipates the natural question, why there are no demoniacs now, if there were so many in those days,( ) and he is logically compelled to maintain that there may still be persons possessed. "it may well be a question, moreover," he says, "if an apostle or one with apostolic discernment of spirits were to enter into a mad-house now, how many of the sufferers there he might not recognize as possessed?"( ) there can scarcely be a question upon the point at all, for such a person issuing direct { } from that period, without subsequent scientific enlightenment, would most certainly pronounce them all, "possessed." it did not, however, require an apostle, nor even one with apostolic discernment of spirits, to recognize the possessed at that time. all those who are represented as being brought to jesus to be healed are described by their friends as having a devil or being possessed, and there was no form of disease more general or more commonly recognized by the jews. for what reason has the recognition of, and belief in, demoniacal possession passed away with the ignorance and superstition which were then prevalent? it is important to remember that the theory of demoniacal possession, and its supposed cure by means of exorcism and invocations, was most common among the jews long before the commencement of the christian era. as casting out devils was the most common type of christian miracles, so it was the commonest belief and practice of the jewish nation. christianity merely shared the national superstition, and changed nothing but the form of exorcism. christianity did not through a "clearer perception of spirits," therefore, originate the belief in demoniacal possession, nor first recognize its victims; nor did such superior enlightenment accompany the superior morality of christianity as to detect the ignorant fallacy. in the old testament we find the most serious evidence of the belief in demonology and witchcraft. the laws against them set the example of that unrelenting severity with which sorcery was treated for so many centuries. we read in exodus xxii. : "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." levit. xix. : "regard not them which have familiar spirits, neither { } seek after wizards, to be defiled by them." levit. xx. : "and the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards to go a-whoring after them, i will even set my face against that soul, and cut him off from among his people;" and verse : "a man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them." deut. xviii. : "there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or an enchanter, or a witch; . or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer; . for all that do these things are an abomination unto the lord," &c. the passages which assert the reality of demonology and witchcraft, however, are much too numerous to permit their citation here. but not only did christianity thus inherit the long-prevalent superstition, but it transmitted it intact to succeeding ages; and there can be no doubt that this demonology, with its consequent and inevitable belief in witchcraft, sorcery, and magic, continued so long to prevail throughout christendom, as much through the authority of the sacred writings and the teaching of the church as through the superstitious ignorance of europe. it would be impossible to select for illustration any type of the gospel miracles, whose fundamental principle,--belief in the reality, malignant action, and power of demons, and in the power of man to control them,--has received fuller or more permanent living acceptance from posterity, down to very recent times, than the cure of disease ascribed to demoniacal influence. the writings of the fathers are full of the belief; the social { } history of europe teems with it. the more pious the people, the more firm was their conviction of its reality. from times antecedent to christianity, until medical science slowly came into existence and displaced miracle cures by the relics of saints, every form of disease was ascribed to demons. madness, idiotcy, epilepsy, and every shape of hysteria were the commonest forms of their malignity; and the blind, the dumb, and the deformed were regarded as unquestionable victims of their malice. every domestic calamity, from the convulsions of a child to the death of a cow, was unhesitatingly attributed to their agency. the more ignorant the community, the greater the number of its possessed. belief in the power of sorcery, witchcraft, and magic was inherent in the superstition, and the universal prevalence shows how catholic was the belief in demoniacal influence. the practice of these arts is solemnly denounced as sin in the new testament and throughout patristic literature, and the church has in all ages fulminated against it. no accusation was more common than that of practising sorcery, and no class escaped from the fatal suspicion. popes were charged with the crime, and bishops were found guilty of it. st. cyprian was said to have been a magician before he became a christian and a father of the church.( ) athanasius was accused of sorcery before the synod of tyre.( ) not only the illiterate but even the learned, in the estimation of their age, believed in it. no heresy was ever persecuted with more unrelenting hatred. popes have issued bulls vehemently anathematising witches and sorcerers, councils have proscribed them, ecclesiastical { } courts have consigned tens of thousands of persons suspected of being such to the stake, monarchs have written treatises against them and invented tortures for their conviction, and every nation in europe and almost every generation have passed the most stringent laws against them. upon no point has there ever been greater unanimity of belief. church and state have vied with each other for the suppression of the abominable crime. every phenomenon of nature, every unwelcome occurrence of social life, as well as every natural disease, has been ascribed to magic and demons. the historical records of europe are filled with the deliberate trial and conviction, upon what was deemed evidence, of thousands of sorcerers and witches. hundreds have been found guilty of exercising demoniacal influence over the elements, from sopater the philosopher, executed under constantino for preventing, by adverse winds, the arrival of corn ships at constantinople, to dr. fian and other witches horribly tortured and burnt for causing a stormy passage on the return of james i. from denmark.( ) thousands of men and tens of thousands of women have been done to death by every conceivable torment for causing sickness or calamity by sorcery, or for flying through the air to attend the witches' sabbath. when scepticism as to the reality of the demoniacal powers of sorcery tardily began to arise, it was fiercely reprobated by the church as infidelity. even so late as the th century, a man like sir thomas browne not only did not include the belief amongst the vulgar errors which he endeavoured to expose, but on the contrary wrote: "for my part, i have ever believed, and do now know that there are pitcairn's criminal trials of scotland, i. pp. , . { } witches. they that doubt of them, do not only deny them, but spirits; and are obliquely, and upon consequence, a sort not of infidels, but atheists."( ) in sir thomas hale, in passing sentence of death against two women convicted of being witches, declared that the reality of witchcraft was undeniable, because "first, the scriptures had affirmed so much; and secondly, the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons, which is an argument of their confidence of such a crime."( ) even the th century was stained with the blood of persons tortured and executed for sorcery. notwithstanding all this persistent and unanimous confirmation, we ask again: what has now become of the belief in demoniacal possession and sorcery? it has utterly disappeared. "joseph mede, lardner, dr. mead, paley, and all the learned modern writers" with dean milinan, as we have seen, explain it away, and such a theory of disease and elemental disturbance is universally recognized to have been a groundless superstition. the countless number of persons tormented and put to death for the supposed crime of witchcraft and sorcery were mere innocent victims to ignorance and credulity. mr. buckle has collected a mass of evidence to show that "there is in every part of the world an intimate relation between ignorance respecting the nature and proper treating of a disease, and { } the belief that such disease is caused by supernatural power, and is to be cured by it."( ) at the commencement of our era every disease was ascribed to the agency of demons simply because the nature of disease was not understood, and the writers of the gospels were not, in this respect, one whit more enlightened than the jews. the progress of science, however, has not only dispelled the superstitious theory as regards disease in our time; its effects are retrospective. science not only declares the ascription of disease to demoniacal possession or malignity to be an idle superstition now, but it equally repudiates the assumption of such a cause at any time. the diseases referred by the gospels, and by the jews of that time, to the action of devils, exist now, but they are known to proceed from purely physical causes. the same superstition and medical ignorance would enunciate the same diagnosis at the present day. the superstition and ignorance, however, have passed away, and with them the demoniacal theory. in that day the theory was as baseless as in this. this is the logical conclusion of every educated man. it is obvious that, with the necessary abandonment of the theory of "possession" and demoniacal origin of disease, the largest class of miracles recorded in the gospels is at once exploded. the asserted cause of the diseases of this class, said to have been miraculously healed, must be recognized to be a mere vulgar superstition, and the narratives of such miracles, ascribing as they do in perfect simplicity distinct objectivity to the supposed "possessing" demons, and reporting their very words and actions, at once assume the character of mere imaginative and fabulous writings based upon superstitious { } tradition, and cannot be accepted as the sober and intelligent report of eye-witnesses. we shall presently see how far this.inference is supported by the literary evidence regarding the date and composition of the gospels. the deduction, however, does not end here. it is clear that, this large class of gospel miracles being due to the superstition of an ignorant and credulous age, the insufficiency of the evidence for any of the other supposed miraculous occurrences narrated in the same documents becomes at once apparent. nothing but the most irrefragable testimony could possibly warrant belief in statements of supernatural events which contradict all experience, and are opposed to all science. when these statements, however, are not only rendered, _à priori_, suspicious by their proceeding from a period of the grossest superstition and credulity, but it becomes evident that a considerable part of them is due solely to that superstition and credulity, by which, moreover, the rest may likewise be most naturally explained, it is obvious that they cannot stand against the opposing conviction of invariable experience. the force of the testimony is gone. we are far from using this language in an offensive sense concerning the gospel narratives, which, by the simple faith of the writers, present the most noble aspect of the occurrences of which superstition is capable. indeed, viewed as compositions gradually rising out of pious tradition, and representing the best spirit of their times, the gospels, even in ascribing such miracles to jesus, are a touching illustration of the veneration excited by his elevated character. devout enthusiasm surrounded his memory with the tradition of the highest exhibitions of power within the range of jewish imagination, { } and that these conceptions represent merely an idealized form of prevalent superstition was not only natural but inevitable. we shall hereafter fully examine the character of the gospels, but it will be sufficient here to point out that none of these writings lays claim to any special inspiration, or in the slightest degree pretends to be more than a human composition,( ) and subject to the errors of human history. . we have seen how incompetent those who lived at the time when the gospel miracles are supposed to have taken place were to furnish reliable testimony regarding such phenomena; and the gross mistake committed in regard to the largest class of these miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, seems altogether to destroy the value of the evidence for the rest, and to connect the whole, as might have been expected, with the general superstition and ignorance of the period. it may be well to inquire further, whether there is any valid reason for excepting any of the miracles of scripture from the fate of the rest, and whether, in fact, there was any special "age of miracles" at all, round which a privileged line can be drawn on any reasonable ground. we have already pointed out that the kind of evidence which is supposed to attest the divine revelation of christianity, so far from being invented for the purpose, was so hackneyed, so to speak, as scarcely to attract the { } notice of the nation to which the revelation was, in the first instance, addressed. not only did the old testament contain accounts of miracles of every one of the types related in the new, but most of them were believed to be commonly performed both before and after the commencement of the christian era. that demons were successfully exorcised, and diseases cured, by means of spells and incantations, was never doubted by the jewish nation. satanic miracles, moreover, are not only recognized throughout the old and new testaments, but formed a leading feature of the patristic creed. the early christians were not more ready than the heathen to ascribe every inexplicable occurrence to supernatural agency, and the only difference between them was as to the nature of that agency. the jews and their heathen neighbours were too accustomed to supposed preternatural occurrences to feel much surprise or incredulity at the account of christian miracles; and it is characteristic of the universal superstition of the period that the fathers did not dream of denying the reality of pagan miracles, but merely attributed them to demons, whilst they asserted the divine origin of their own. the reality of the powers of sorcery was never questioned. every marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference with human affairs seemed matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age. however much miracles are exceptions to the order of nature, they have always been the rule in the history of ignorance. in fact, the excess of belief in them throughout many centuries of darkness is fatal to their claims to credence now. the christian miracles are rendered almost as suspicious from their place in a long sequence of similar occurrences, as they are by being exceptions { } to the sequence of natural phenomena. it would indeed be extraordinary if whole cycles of miracles occurring before and since those of the gospels, and in connection with every religion, could be repudiated as fables, and those alone maintained as genuine. no attempt is made to deny the fact that miracles are common to all times and to all religious creeds. dr. newman states amongst the conclusions of his essay on the miracles of early ecclesiastical history: "that there was no age of miracles, after which miracles ceased; that there have been at all times true miracles and false miracles, true accounts and false accounts; that no authoritative guide is supplied to us for drawing the line between the two."( ) dr. mozley also admits that morbid love of the marvellous in the human race "has produced a constant stream of miraculous pretension in the world, which accompanies man wherever he is found, and is a part of his mental and physical history."( ) ignorance and its invariable attendant, superstition, have done more than mere love of the marvellous to produce and perpetuate belief in miracles, and there cannot be any doubt that the removal of ignorance always leads to the cessation of miracles.( ) the bampton lecturer proceeds: 'heathenism had its running stream of supernatural pretensions in the shape of prophecy, exorcism, and the miraculous cures of diseases, which the temples of esculapius recorded with pompous display."( ) so far from the gospel miracles being original, and a presentation, for the first time, of phenomena until then unknown { } and unlikely to suggest themselves to the mind, "jewish supernaturalism was indeed going on side by side with our lord's miracles."( ) dr. mozley, however, rebuts the inference which has been drawn from this: "that his miracles could not, in the very nature of the case, be evidences of his distinctive teaching and mission, inasmuch as miracles were common to himself and his opponents," by the assertion that a very marked distinction exists between the gospel miracles and all others.( ) he perfectly recognizes the consequence if such a distinction cannot be clearly demonstrated. "the criticism, therefore, which _evidential_ miracles, or miracles which serve as evidence of a revelation, must come up to, if they are to accomplish the object for which they are designed, involves at the outset this condition,--that the evidence of such miracles must be distinguishable from the evidences of this permanent stream of miraculous pretension in the world; that such miracles must be separated by an interval not only from the facts of the order of nature, but also from the common running miraculous, which is the simple offshoot of human nature. can evidential miracles be inserted in this promiscuous mass, so as not to be confounded with it, but to assert their own truth and distinctive source? if they cannot there is an end to the proof of a revelation by miracles: if they can, it remains to see whether the christian miracles are thus distinguishable, and whether their nature, their object, and their evidence vindicate their claim to this distinctive truth and divine source."( ) now, regarding this distinction between gospel and { } other miracles, it must be observed that the religious feeling which influenced the composition of the scripture narratives of miracles naturally led to the exclusion of all that was puerile or ignoble in the traditions preserved regarding the great master. the elevated character of jesus afforded no basis for what was petty, and the devotion with which he was regarded when the gospels were written insured the noblest treatment of his history within certain limits. we must, therefore, consider the bare facts composing the miracles rather than the narrative of the manner in which they are said to have been produced, in order rightly to judge of the comparative features of different miracles. if we take the case of a person raised from the dead, literary skill may invest the account with more or less of dramatic interest and dignity, but whether the main fact be surrounded with pathetic and picturesque details,.as in the account of the raising of lazarus in the fourth gospel, or the person be simply restored to life without them, it is the fact of the resurrection which constitutes the miracle, and it is in the facts alone that we must seek distinction, disregarding and distrusting the accessories. in the one case the effect may be much more impressive, but in the other the bare raising of the dead is not a whit less miraculous. "we have been accustomed to read the gospel narratives of miracles with so much special veneration, that it is now difficult to recognize how much of the distinction of these miracles is due to the composition, and to their place in the history of jesus. no other miracles, or account of miracles, ever had such collateral advantages. as works attributed to our sublimest teacher, described with simple eloquence and, especially in the case of those in { } the fourth gospel, with artistic perfection, and read generally with reverential wonder untempered by a thought of criticism, these miracles have seemed to be surrounded by a mystic halo certainly not emanating from themselves. it must not be forgotten, therefore, that the miracle lies in the bare act, and not in its dramatic arrangement. the restoration of life to a dead man is the very same miracle whether it be effected by the relics of a saint or by the word of an apostle. a miracle is not antecedently more credible because of the outstretched arm and word of command, than it is in the silence of the shrine. being supernatural, the real agency is not seen in either case, although the human mind is more satisfied by the presentation of an apparent cause in the one case, which seems to be absent in the other. in preferring the former type, we are not only influenced by a more dramatic narrative, but we select for belief the miracle from which we can unconsciously eliminate more of the miraculous elements, by tracing it to a visible natural cause which cannot be seen in the latter. the antecedent incredibility of miracles, however, is not affected by literary skill, and is independent of scenic effect. the archbishop of dublin says: "few points present greater difficulties than the attempt to fix accurately the moment when these miraculous powers were withdrawn from the church;" and he argues that they were withdrawn when it entered into what he calls its permanent state, and no longer required "these props and strengthenings of the infant plant."( ) that their retrocession was gradual, he considers natural, and he imagines the fulness of divine power as gradually waning as it was { } subdivided, first among the apostles, and then amongst the ever-multiplying members of the church, until by sub-division it became virtually extinct, leaving as a substitute "the standing wonder of a church."( ) this, of course, is not argument, but merely the archbishop's fanciful explanation of a serious difficulty. the fact is, however, that the gospel miracles were preceded and accompanied by others of the same type, and we may here merely mention exorcism of demons, and the miraculous cure of disease, as popular instances; they were also followed by a long succession of others, quite as well authenticated, whose occurrence only became less frequent in proportion as the diffusion of knowledge dispelled popular credulity. even at the present day a stray miracle is from time to time reported in outlying districts, where the ignorance and superstition which formerly produced so abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled. papias of hierapolis narrates a wonderful story, according to eusebius, which he had heard from the daughters of the apostle philip, who lived at the same time in hierapolis: "for he relates that a dead man was restored to life in his day."( ) justin martyr, speaking of his own time, frequently asserts that christians still receive the gift of healing, of foreknowledge, and of prophecy,( ) and he points out to the roman senate as a fact happening under their own observation, that many demoniacs throughout all the world [--greek--] and in their own city have { } been healed and are healed, many of the christian' men among is [--greek--] exorcising them in the name of jesus christ, subduing and expelling the possessing demons out of the man, although all the other exorcists with incantations and spells had failed to do so.( ) theophilus of antioch likewise states that to his day demons are exorcised.( ) irenæus in the clearest manner claims for the church of his time the continued possession of the divine [--greek--] he contrasts the miracles of the followers of simon and carpocrates, which he ascribes to magical illusions, with those of christians. "for they can neither give sight to the blind," he continues, "nor to the deaf hearing, nor cast out all demons, but only those introduced by themselves, if they can even do that; nor heal the sick, the lame, the paralytic, nor those afflicted in other parts of the body, as has been often done in regard to bodily infirmity.... but so far are they from raising the dead,--as the lord raised them and the apostles by prayer, and as frequently in the brotherhood, when the whole church in a place made supplication with much fasting and prayer, the spirit of the dead was constrained to return, and the man was freely restored in answer to the prayers of the saints--that they do not believe this can possibly be done."( ) canon { } mozley, who desires for the purpose of his argument to weaken the evidence of patristic belief in the continuance of miracles, says regarding this last passage on raising the dead:--"but the reference is so vague that it possesses but little weight as testimony."( ) we should be sorry to think that the vice, which seems at present to characterize the church to which dr. mozley belongs, of making simple language mean anything or nothing just as any one happens to wish, should be introduced into critical or historical studies. the language of irenæus is vague only in so far as specific detailed instances are not given of the miracles referred to; but no language could be more definite or explicit to express the meaning of irenæus, namely, the assertion that the prayers of christian communities had frequently restored the dead to life. eusebius, who quotes the passage, and who has preserved to us the original greek, clearly recognized this. he says, when making the quotations: "in the second book of the same work he (irenæus) testifies that up to his time tokens of divine and miraculous power remained in some churches,"( ) in the next chapter irenæus further says:--"on which account, also, his true disciples receiving grace from him, work (miracles) in his name for the benefit of the rest of mankind, according to the gift received from him by each of them. for some do certainly and truly [--greek--] cast out demons, so that frequently those very men who have thus been cleansed from the evil spirits both { } believe and are now in the church. and some have foreknowledge of future occurrences, and visions, and prophetic utterances. others heal the sick by the imposition of hands and make them whole. indeed, as we have already stated, even the dead have been raised up, and have remained with us for many years. and what more shall i say? it is not possible to state the number of the gifts which the church throughout the world has received from god in the name of jesus christ, crucified under pontius pilate, and which she each day employs for the benefit of the heathen," &c.( ) tertullian speaks with the most perfect assurance of miracles occurring in his day, and of the power of healing and of casting out devils still possessed by christians. in one place, for iustance, after asserting the power which they have generally over demons, so that if a person possessed by a devil be brought before one of the roman tribunals, a follower of christ can at once compel the wicked spirit within him to confess that he is a demon, even if he had before asserted himself to be a god, he proceeds to say: "so at our touch and breathing, violently affected by the contemplation and representation of those fires (of hell) they (demons) also depart at our command out of bodies, reluctant and complaining, and put to shame { } in your presence."( ) he declares that although dreams are chiefly inflicted upon us by demons, yet they are also sent by god, and indeed "almost the greater part of mankind derive their knowledge concerning god from visions."( ) he, elsewhere, states that he himself knows that a brother was severely castigated by a vision the same night on which his slaves had, without his knowledge, done something reprehensible.( ) he narrates as an instance of the continued possession of spiritual _charismata_ by christians: "there is at this day among us a sister who has the gift of revelations, which she receives in church amidst the solemnities of the lord's day by ecstasy in the spirit: she converses with angels, and sometimes also with the lord, and she both hears and sees mysteries (_sacramenta_), and she reads the hearts of some men, and prescribes medicines to those who are in need."( ) tertullian goes on to say that, after the people were dismissed from the church, this sister was in the regular habit of reporting what she had seen, and that most diligent inquiries were made in order to test the truth of her communications;( ) and after narrating a vision of a disembodied soul vouchsafed to her, he states: "this is the vision, god being witness, and { } the apostle( ) having foretold that such spiritual gifts should be in the church."( ) further on tertullian relates another story within his own knowledge: "i know the case of a woman, born within the fold of the church, who was in the prime of life and beauty. after being but once, and only a short time, married, having fallen asleep in peace, in the interval before interment (sp.) when the presbyter began to pray as she was being made ready for burial, at the first breath of prayer she removed her hands from her sides, folded them in the attitude of supplication, and again, when the last rites were over, restored them to their former position."( ) he then mentions another story known amongst them: that a dead body in a cemetery moved itself in order to make room beside it for another body;( ) and then he remarks: "if similar cases are also reported amongst the heathen, we conclude that god displays signs of his power for the consolation of his own people, and as a testimony to others."( ) again, he mentions cases where christians had cured persons of demoniacal possession, and adds: "and how many men of position (for we do not speak of the vulgar) have been delivered either from devils or from diseases."( ) tertullian { } in the same place refers to the miracle of the "thundering legion,"( ) and he exclaims: "when indeed have not droughts been removed by our prayers and fastings."( ) minucius felix speaks of the casting out of devils from sick persons by christians in his own day, as a matter of public notoriety even among pagans.( ) st. cyprian echoes the same assertions.( ) he likewise mentions cases of miraculous punishment inflicted upon persons who had lapsed from the christian faith. one of these, who ascended the capitol to make denial of christ, suddenly became dumb after he had spoken the words.( ) another, a woman, was seized by an unclean spirit even at the baths, and bit with her own teeth the impious tongue which had eaten the idolatrous food, or spoken the words, and she shortly expired in great agony.( ) he likewise maintains that christians are admonished by god in dreams and by visions, of which he mentions instances.( ) origen claims for christians the power still to expel demons, and to heal diseases in the name of jesus,( ) and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of madness and countless other evils, which could not be otherwise cured by men or devils.( ) lactantius repeatedly asserts the power of christians over demons; they make them flee from bodies when they adjure them in the name of god.( ) passing over the numerous apocryphal writings of the early centuries of our era, in which many miracles are { } recorded, we find in the pages of eusebius narratives of many miraculous occurrences. many miracles are ascribed to narcissus, bishop of jerusalem, of which eusebius relates several. whilst the vigils of the great watch of the passover were being kept, the oil failed, whereupon narcissus commanded that water from the neighbouring well should be poured into the lamps. having prayed over the water, it was changed into oil, of which a specimen had been preserved until that time.( ) on another occasion, three men having spread some vile slanders against narcissus, which they confirmed by an oath, and with imprecations upon themselves of death by a miserable disease, of death by fire, and of blindness, respectively, if their statements were not true, omnipotent justice in each case inflicted upon the wretches the curse which each had invoked.( ) the election of fabianus to the episcopal chair of rome was marked by the descent of a dove from on high, which rested upon his head, as the holy ghost had descended upon our saviour.( ) at cæsarea philippi there is a statue of jesus christ which eusebius states that he himself had seen, said to have been erected by the woman healed of the bloody issue, and on the pedestal grows a strange plant as high as the hem of the brazen garment, which is an antidote to all diseases.( ) great miracles are recorded as taking place during the persecutions in cæsarea.( ) gregory of nyssa gives an account of many wonderful works performed by his namesake gregory of neo-cæsarea, who was called _thaumaturgus_ from the miraculous power which he possessed and very freely { } exercised. the virgin mary and the apostle john appeared to him, on one occasion, when he was in doubt as to the doctrine which he ought to preach, and, at the request of mary, the apostle gave him all needful instructions.( ) if his faith did not move mountains, it moved a huge rock to convert a pagan priest.( ) he drove a demon out of a heathen temple in which he had taken refuge, and the evil spirit could not re-enter until he gave permission.( ) nyssen relates how st. gregory averted an armed contest of two brothers who quarrelled about the possession of a lake on their father's property. the saint passed the night in prayer beside the lake, and in the morning it was found dried up.( ) on another occasion he rescued the country from the devastation of a mountain stream, which periodically burst the dykes by which it was restrained and inundated the plain. he went on foot to the place, and invoking the name of christ, fixed his staff in the earth at the place where the torrent had broken through. the staff took root and became a tree, and the stream never again burst its bounds. the inhabitants of the district were converted to christianity by this miracle. the tree was still living in nyssen's time, and he had seen the bed of the lake covered with trees, pastures, and cottages.( ) two vagabond jews once attempted to deceive him. one of them lay down and pretended to be dead, while the other begged money from the saint wherewith to buy him a shroud. st. gregory quietly took off his cloak and laid it on the man, and { } walked away. his companion found that he was really dead.( ) st. gregory expelled demons from persons possessed, healed the sick and performed many other miracles;( ) and his signs and wonders are not only attested by gregory of nyssa, but by st. basil,( ) whose grandmother, st. macrina, was brought up at neo-cæsarea by the immediate followers of the saint. athanasius, in his memoir of st. anthony, who began to lead the life of a recluse about a.d. , gives particulars of many miracles performed by the saint. although he possessed great power over demons, and delivered many persons possessed by them, satan tormented him sadly, and he was constantly beset by legions of devils. one night satan with a troop of evil spirits so belaboured the saint that he lay on the ground speechless and almost dead from their blows.( ) we have already referred to the case of natalius, who was scourged by angels during a whole night, till he was brought to repentance.( ) upon one occasion when st. anthony had retired to his cell resolved to pass a time in perfect solitude, a certain soldier came to his door and remained long there knocking and supplicating the saint to come and deliver his daughter, who was tormented by a demon. at length st. anthony addressed the man and told him to go, and if he believed in jesus christ and prayed to god, his prayer should { } be fulfilled. the man believed, invoked jesus christ, and his daughter was delivered from the demon.( ) as anthony was once travelling across the desert to visit another monastery, the water of the caravan failed them, and his companions in despair threw themselves on the ground. st. anthony, however, retired a little apart, and in answer to his prayer a spring of water issued at the place where he was kneeling.( ) a man named fronto, who was afflicted with leprosy, begged his prayers, and was ordered by the saint to go into egypt, where he should be healed. fronto at first refused, but being told that he could not be healed if he remained, the sick man went believing, and as soon as he came in sight of egypt he was made whole.( ) another miracle was performed by anthony at alexandria in the presence of st. athanasius. as they were leaving the city a woman cried after him, "man of god, stay; my daughter is cruelly troubled by a demon;" and she entreated him to stop lest she herself should die in running after him. at the request of athanasius and the rest, the saint paused, and as the woman came up her daughter fell on the ground convulsed. st. anthony prayed in the name of jesus christ, and immediately the girl rose perfectly restored to health, and delivered from the evil spirit.( ) he astonished a number of pagan philosophers, who had come to dispute with him, by delivering several demoniacs, making the sign of the cross over them three times, and invoking the name of jesus christ.( ) it is unnecessary, however, to multiply instances of his miraculous power to drive out demons and heal diseases,( ) and to perform other { } wonderful works. st. athanasius, who was himself for a long time a personal follower of st. anthony, protests in his preface to the biography his general accuracy, he having everywhere been mindful of the truth.( ) hilarion, again, a disciple of st. anthony, performed many miracles, an account of some of which is given by st. jerome. he restored sight to a woman who had been blind for no less than ten years; he cast out devils, and miraculously cured many diseases. rain fell in answer to his prayers; and he further exhibited his power over the elements by calming a stormy sea. when he was buried, ten months after his death, not only was his body as perfect as though he had been alive, but it emitted a delightful perfume. he was so favoured of god that, long after, diseases were healed and demons expelled at his tomb.( ) st. macarius, the egyptian, is said to have restored a dead man to life in order to convince an unbeliever of the truth of the resurrection.( ) st. martin, of tours, restored to life a certain catechumen who had died of a fever, and sulpicius, his disciple, states that the man, who lived for many years after, was known to himself, although not until after the miracle. he also restored to life a servant who had hung himself.( ) he performed a multitude of other miracles, to which we need not here more minutely refer. the relics of the two martyrs protavius and gervasius, whose bones, with much fresh blood, the miraculous evidence of their martyrdom and identity, were discovered by st. ambrose, worked a { } number of miracles. a man suffering from demoniacal possession indicated the proximity of the relics by his convulsions. st. augustine states that he himself was in milan when a blind man, who merely touched the cloth which covered the two bodies as they were being moved to a neighbouring church, regained his sight.( ) paulinus relates many miracles performed by his master, st. ambrose, himself. he not only cast out many demons and healed the sick,( ) but he also raised the dead. whilst the saint was staying in the house of a distinguished christian friend, his child, who, a few days before, had been delivered from an unclean spirit, suddenly expired. the mother, an exceedingly religious woman, full of faith and the fear of god, carried the dead boy down and laid him on the saint's bed during his absence. when st. ambrose returned, filled with compassion for the mother and struck by her faith, he stretched himself, like elisha, on the body of the child, praying, and restored him living to his mother. paulinus relates this miracle with minute particulars of name and address.( ) st. augustine asserts that miracles are still performed in his day in the name of jesus christ, either by means of his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints, although they are not so well-known as those of old, and he gives an account of many miracles which had recently taken place.( ) after referring to the miracle performed by the relics of the two martyrs upon the blind man in milan, which occurred when he was there, he goes on to narrate the miraculous cure of a friend of { } his own, named innocent, formerly advocate of the prefecture, in carthage, where augustine was, and beheld it with his own eyes (_ubi nos interfuimus et oculis aspeximus nostris_). a lady of rank in the same city was miraculously healed of an incurable cancer, and st. augustine is indignant at the apathy of her friends, which allowed so great a miracle to be so little known.( ) an inhabitant of the neighbouring town of curubis was cured of paralysis and other ills by being baptized. when augustine heard of this, although it was reported on very good authority, the man himself was brought to carthage by order of the holy bishop aurelius, in order that the truth might be ascertained. augustine states that, on one occasion during his absence, a tribunitian man amongst them named hesperius, who had a farm close by, called zubedi, in the fussalian district, begged one of the christian presbyters to go and drive away some evil spirits whose malice sorely afflicted his servants and cattle. one of the presbyters accordingly went, and offered the sacrifice of the body of christ with earnest prayer, and by the mercy of god, the evil was removed. now hesperius happened to have received from one of his friends a piece of the sacred earth of jerusalem, where jesus christ was buried and rose again the third day, and he had hung it up in his room to protect himself from the evil spirits. when his house had been freed from them, however, he begged st. augustine and his colleague maximinus, who happened to be in that neighbourhood, to come to him, and after telling them all that had happened, he prayed them to bury the piece of earth in some place where christians could assemble for the worship of god. they consented, and did as he desired. a young peasant of the neighbourhood, who was paralytic, hearing of this, begged that he might be carried without delay to the holy spot, where he offered up prayer, and rose up and went away on his feet perfectly cured. about thirty miles from hippo, at a farm called victoriana, there was a memorial to the two martyrs protavius and gervasius. to this, augustine relates, was brought a young man who, having gone one summer day at noon to water his horse in the river, was possessed by a demon. the lady to whom the place belonged came according to her custom in the evening, with her servants and some holy women to sing hymns and pray. on hearing them the demoniac started up and seized the altar with a terrible shudder, without daring to move, and as if bound to it, and the demon praying with a loud voice for mercy confessed where and when he had entered into the young man. at last the demon named all the members of his body, with threats to cut them off as he made his exit, and, saying these words, came out of him. in doing so, however, the eye of the youth fell from its socket on to his cheek, retained only by a small vein as by a root, whilst the pupil became altogether white. well pleased, however, that the young man had been freed from the evil spirit, they returned the eye to its place as well as they could, and bound it up with a handkerchief, praying fervently, and one of his relatives said: "god who drove out the demon at the prayer of his saints can also restore the sight." on removing the bandage seven days after, the eye was found perfectly whole. st. augustine knew a girl of { } hippo who was delivered from a demon by the application of oil with which had mingled the tears of the presbyter who was praying for her. he also knew a bishop who prayed for a youth possessed by a demon, although he had not even seen him, and the young man was at once cured. augustine further gives particulars of many miracles performed by the relics of the most glorious martyr stephen.( ) by their virtue the blind receive their sight, the sick are healed, the impenitent converted, and the dead are restored to life. "andurus is the name of an estate," augustine says, "where there is a church and in it a shrine dedicated to the martyr stephen. a certain little boy was playing in the court, when unruly bullocks drawing a waggon crushed him with the wheel, and immediately he lay in the agonies of death. then his mother raised him up, and placed him at the shrine, and he not only came to life again, but had manifestly received no injury.( ) a certain religious woman, who lived in a neighbouring property called caspalianus, being dangerously ill and her life despaired of, her tunic was carried to the same shrine, but before it was brought back she had expired. nevertheless, her relatives covered the body with this tunic, and she received back the spirit and was made whole.( ) at hippo, a certain man named { } bassus, a syrian, was praying at the shrine of the same martyr for his daughter who was sick and in great peril, and he had brought her dress with him; when lo! some of his household came running to announce to him that she was dead. but as he was engaged in prayer they were stopped by his friends, who prevented their telling him, lest he should give way to his grief in public. when he returned to his house, which already resounded with the wailing of his household, he cast over the body of his daughter her mantle which he had with him, and immediately she was restored to life.( ) again, in the same city, the son of a certain man among us named irenæus, a collector of taxes, became sick and died. as the dead body lay, and they were preparing with wailing and lamentation to bury it, one of his friends consoling him suggested that the body should be anointed with oil from the same martyr. this was done, and the child came to life again.( ) in the same way a man amongst us named eleusinus, formerly a tribune, laid the body of his child, who had died from sickness, on a memorial of the martyr which is in his villa in the suburbs, and after he had prayed, with many tears, he took up the child living."( ) { } we shall meet with more of these miracles in considering the arguments of dr. mozley. in a note he says: "augustine again, long after, alludes in his list of miracles (de civ. dei, xxii. ,) to some cases in which persons had been raised to life again by prayer and the intercession of martyrs, whose relics were applied. but though augustine relates with great particularity and length of detail some cases of recoveries from complaints in answer to prayer, his notices of the cases in which persons had been raised to life again, are so short, bare, and summary, that they evidently represent no more than mere report, and report of a very vague kind. indeed, with the preface which he prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it. 'hæc autem, ubicunque fiunt, ibi sciuntur vix a tota ipsa civitate vel quocumque commanentium loco. nam plerumque etiam ibi paucissimi sciunt, ignorantibus eseteris, maxime si magna sit civitas; et quando alibi aliisque narrantur, non tantum ea commendat auctoritas, ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur, quamvis christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur.' he puts down the cases as he received them, then, without pledging himself to their authenticity. 'eucharius presbyter... mortuus sic jacebat ut ei jam pol-lices ligarentur: opitulatione memorati martyris, cum de memoria ejus reportata fuisset et supra jacentis corpus missa ipsius presbyteri tunica, suscitatus est... andurus nomen est &c.",( ) and then dr. mozley gives the passage already quoted by us. before continuing, { } we must remark with regard to the passages just quoted, that, in the miracle of eucharius, dr. mozley, without explanation, omits details. the whole passage is as follows: "eucharius, a presbyter from spain, resided at calama, who had for a long time suffered from stone. by the relics of the same martyr, which the bishop possidius brought to him, he was made whole. the same presbyter, afterwards succumbing to another disease, lay dead, so that they were already binding his hands. succour came from the relics of the martyr, for the tunic of the presbyter being brought back from the relics and placed upon his body he revived."( ) a writer who complains of the bareness of narratives, should certainly not curtail their statements. dr. mozley continues: "there are three other cases of the same kind, in which there is nothing to verify the death from which the return to life is said to take place, as being more than mere suspension of the vital powers; but the writer does not go into particulars of description or proof, but simply inserts them in his list as they have been reported to him."( ) dr. mozley is anxious to detract from the miracles described by augustine, and we regret to be obliged to maintain that in order to do so he misrepresents, no doubt unintentionally, augustine's statements, and, as we think, also unduly depreciates the comparative value of the evidence. we shall briefly refer to the two points in question. i. that "his notices of the cases in which persons had been raised to life again are so short, { } bare, and summary that they evidently represent no more than mere report, and report of a very vague kind." ii. "that with the preface which augustine prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it." it is true that in several cases augustine gives the account of miraculous cures at greater length than those of restoration to life. it seems to us that this is almost inevitable at all times, and that the reason is obvious. where the miracle consists merely of the cure of disease, details are naturally given to show the nature and intensity of the sickness, and they are necessary not only for the comprehension of the cure but to show its importance. in the case of restoration to life, the mere statement of the death and assertion of the subsequent resurrection exclude all need of details. the pithy _reddita est vitæ_, or _factum est et revixit_ is more striking than any more prolix narrative. in fact, the greater the miracle the more natural is conciseness and simplicity; and practically, we find that augustine gives a more lengthy and verbose report of trifling cures, whilst he relates the more important with greater brevity and force. he narrates many of his cases of miraculous cure, however, as briefly as those in which the dead are raised. we have quoted the latter, and the reader must judge whether they are unduly curt. one thing may be affirmed, that nothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to essential details they are as explicit as the mass of other cases reported. in every instance names and addresses are stated, and it will have been observed that all these miracles occurred in, or close to, hippo, and in his own diocese. it is very certain that in { } every case the fact of the miracle is asserted in the most direct and positive terms. there can be no mistake either as to the meaning or intention of the narrative, and there is no symptom whatever of a thought on the part of augustine to avoid the responsibility of his statements, or to give them as mere vague report. if wo compare these accounts with those of the gospels, we do not find them deficient in any essential detail common to the latter. there is in the synoptic gospels only one case in which jesus is said to have raised the dead. the raising of jairus' daughter( ) has long been abandoned, as a case of restoration to life, by all critics and theologians, except the few who still persist in ignoring the distinct and positive declaration of jesus, "the damsel is not dead but sleepeth." the only case, therefore, in the synoptics is the account in the third gospel of the raising of the widow's son,( ) of which, strange to say, the other gospels know nothing. now, although, as might have been expected, this narrative is much more highly coloured and picturesque, the difference is chiefly literary, and, indeed, there are really fewer important details given than in the account by augustine, for instance, of the restoration to life of the daughter of bassus the syrian, which took place at hippo, of which he was bishop, and where he actually resided. augustine's object in giving his list of miracles did not require him to write picturesque narratives. he merely desired to state bare facts, whilst the authors of the gospels composed the life of their master, in which interesting details were everything. for many reasons we refrain here from alluding to the artistic narrative of the raising { } of lazarus, the greatest miracle ascribed to jesus, yet so singularly unknown to the other three evangelists, who, so readily repeating the accounts of trifling cures, would most certainly not have neglected this had they ever heard of it. dr. mozley complains of the absence of verification and proof of actual death in these cases, or that they were more than mere suspension of the vital powers. we cordially agree with him in the desire for such evidence, not only in these, but in all miracles. we would ask, however, what verification of the death have we in the case of the widow's son which we have not here? if we apply such a test to the miracles of the gospels, we must reject them as certainly as those of st. augustine. in neither case have we more than a mere statement that the subjects of these miracles were dead or diseased. so far are we from having any competent medical evidence of the reality of the death, or of the disease, or of the permanence of the supposed cures in the gospels, that we have little more than the barest reports of these miracles by writers who, even if their identity were established, were not, and do not pretend to have been, eye-witnesses of the occurrences which they relate. take, for instance, this very raising of the widow's son in the third gospel, which is unknown to the other evangelists, and the narrative of which is given only in a gospel which is not attributed to a personal follower of jesus. now we turn to the second statement of dr. mozley, "that with the preface which augustine prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it." this extraordinary assertion is supported by a quotation { } given above, which dr. mozley has separated from what precedes and follows it, so that its real meaning is scarcely apparent. we shall as briefly as possible state what is actually the "preface" of st. augustine to his list of miracles, and his avowed object for giving it. in the preceding chapter, augustine has been arguing that the world believed in christ by virtue of divine influence and not by human persuasion. he contends that it is ridiculous to speak of the false divinity of romulus when christians speak of christ. if, in the time of romulus, some years before cicero, people were so enlightened that they refused to believe anything of which they had not experience, how much more, in the still more enlightened days of cicero himself, and notably in the reigns of augustus and tiberius, would they have rejected belief in the resurrection and ascension of christ, if divine truth and the testimony of miracles had not proved not only that such things could take place, but that they had actually done so. when the evidence of prophecy joined with that of miracles, and showed that the new doctrines were only contrary to experience and not contrary to reason, the world embraced the faith.( ) "why, then, say they, do these miracles which you declare to have taken place formerly, not occur now-a-days?" augustine, in replying, adopts a common rhetorical device: "i might, indeed, answer," he says, "that miracles were necessary before the world believed, in order that the world might believe. any one who now requires miracles in order that he may believe, is himself a great miracle in not believing what all the world believes. but, really, they say this in order that even those miracles should not be believed either." { } and he reduces what he considers to be the position of the world in regard to miracles and to the supernatural dogmas of christianity to the following dilemma: "either things incredible which nevertheless occurred, and were seen, led to belief in something else incredible, which was not seen; or that thing was in itself so credible that no miracles were required to establish it, and so much more is the unbelief of those who deny confuted. this might i say to these most frivolous objectors." he then proceeds to affirm that it cannot be denied that many miracles attest the great miracle of the ascension in the flesh of the risen christ, and he points out that the actual occurrence of all these things is not only recorded in the most truthful books, but the reasons also given why they took place. these things have become known that they might create belief; these things by the belief they have created have become much more clearly known. they are read to the people, indeed, that they may believe; yet, nevertheless, they would not be read to the people if they had not been believed. after thus stating the answer which he might give, augustine now returns to answer the question directly:--"but, furthermore," he continues, "miracles are performed now in his name, either by means of his sacraments, or by the prayers or relics of his saints, but they are not brought under the same strong light as caused the former to be noised abroad with so much glory; inasmuch as the canon of sacred scriptures, which must be definite, causes those miracles to be everywhere publicly read, and become firmly fixed in the memory of all peoples;"(l) and then follows dr. mozley's { } quotation: "but these are scarcely known to the whole of a city itself in which they are performed, or to its neighbourhood. indeed, for the most part, even there very few know of them, and the rest are ignorant, more especially if the city be large; and when they are related elsewhere and to others, the authority does not so commend them as to make them be believed without difficulty or doubt, albeit they are reported by faithful christians to the faithful." he illustrates this by pointing out in immediate continuation, that the miracle in milan by the bodies of the two martyrs, which took place when he himself was there, might reach the knowledge of many, because the city is large, and the emperor and an immense crowd of people witnessed it, but who knows of the miracle performed at carthage upon his friend innocent, when he was there also, and saw it with his own eyes? who knows of the miraculous cure of cancer, he continues, in a lady of rank in the same city? at the silence regarding which he is so indignant. who knows of the next case he mentions in his list? the cure of a medical man of the same town, to which he adds: "we, nevertheless, do know it, and a few brethren to whose knowledge it may have come."( ) who out of curubus, besides the very few who may have heard of it, knows of the miraculous cure of the paralytic man, whose case augustine personally investigated? and so on. observe that there is merely a question of the comparative notoriety of the gospel { } miracles and those of his own time, not a doubt as to the reality of the latter. again, towards the end of his long list, immediately after the narrative of the restoration to life of the child of eleusinus, which we have quoted, augustine says:--"what can i do? the promise of the completion of this work is pressing, so that i cannot here recount all (the miracles) that i know; and without doubt many of our brethren when they read this work will be grieved that i have omitted so very much, which they know as well as i do. this i even now beg that they will pardon, and consider how long would be the task of doing that which, for the completion of the work, it is thought necessary not to do. for if i desired to record merely the miracles of healing, without speaking of others, which have been performed by this martyr, that is to say, the most glorious stephen, in the district of calama, and in ours of hippo, many volumes must be composed, yet will it not be possible to make a complete collection of them, but only of such as have been published for public reading. for that was our object, since we saw repeated in our time signs of divine power similar to those of old, deeming that they ought not to be lost to the knowledge of the multitude. now this relic has not yet been two years at hippo-regius, and accounts of many of the miracles performed by it have not been written, as is most certainly known to us, yet the number of those which have been published, up to the time this is written, amounts ta about seventy. at calama, however, where these relics have been longer, and more of the miracles were recorded, they incomparably exceed this number."( ) augustine goes on to say that, to his knowledge, many very remarkable miracles were performed by the relics of the same martyr also at uzali, a district near to utica, and of one of these, which had recently taken place when he himself was there, he gives an account. then, before closing his list with the narrative of a miracle which took place at hippo, in his own church, in his own presence, and in the sight of the whole congregation, he resumes his reply to the opening question:--"many miracles, therefore," he says, "are also performed now, the same god who worked those of which we read, performing these by whom he wills and as he wills; but these miracles neither become similarly known, nor, that they may not slip out of mind, are they stamped, as it were like gravel, into memory, by frequent reading. for even in places where care is taken, as is now the case amongst us, that accounts of those who receive benefit should be publicly read, those who are present hear them only once, and many are not present at all, so that those who were present do not, after a few days, remember { } what they heard, and scarcely a single person is met with who repeats what he has heard to one whom he may have known to have been absent"( ) so far from casting doubt upon the miracles which he narrates, the "preface" of augustine is clearly intended to establish them. these "signs of divine power similar to those of old," are not less real and important, but merely less known, because the eyes of the world are not directed to them, and they have not the advantage of being everywhere published abroad by means of canonical scriptures constantly read to the people and acknowledged as authoritative. dr. mozleys statement is quite unwarranted, and it seems to us gratuitously injurious to st. augustine. this father of the church and bishop must have had as little good faith as good sense, if he did what such a statement implies. in order to demonstate the truth of his assertion that miracles were still performed in his day, dr. mozley represents augustine as deliberately producing a long list of instances of which "he cannot even be said to guarantee the truth," and the more important cases in which "evidently represent no more than mere report, and report of a very vague kind." we have furnished the reader with the materials for forming an opinion on these points. the judgment of dr. mozley may with equal justice be applied to { } the authors of the synoptic gospels. they certainly do not guarantee the truth of the miracles they relate in any more precise way than augustine. like him, they merely narrate them as facts, and he as evidently believes what he states as they do. indeed, as regards comparative fulness of testimony, the advantage is altogether on the side of the miracles reported by st. augustine. these miracles occurred within two years of the time at which he wrote, and were at once recorded with the names of the subjects and of the places at which they occurred; most of them were performed in his own diocese, and several of them in his own presence; some, of which he apparently did not feel sure, he personally investigated; he states his knowledge of others, and he narrates the whole of them with the most direct and simple affirmation of the facts, without a single word indicating hesitation, or directly or indirectly attributing the narrative to mere report. moreover, he not only advances these miracles deliberately and in writing, in support of his positive assertion that miracles were still performed, but these accounts of them had in the first instance been written that they might be publicly read in his own church for the edification of christians, almost on the very spot where they are stated to have occurred. we need scarcely say that we do not advance these reasons in order to argue the reality of the miracles themselves, but simply to maintain that, so far from his giving the account of them as mere report, or not even professing to vouch for their truth, st. augustine both believed them himself, and asked others to believe them as facts, and that they are as unhesitatingly affirmed as any related in the gospels. { } we shall not attempt any further detailed reference to the myriads of miracles with which the annals of the church teem up to very recent times. the fact is too well known to require evidence. the saints in the calendar are legion. it has been computed that the number of those whose lives are given in the bollandist collection( ) amounts to upwards of , , although, the saints being arranged according to the calendar, the unfinished work only reaches the twenty-fourth of october. when it is considered that all those upon whom the honour of canonization is conferred have worked miracles, many of them, indeed, almost daily performing such wonders, some idea may be formed of the number of miracles which have occurred in unbroken succession from apostolic days, and have been believed and recognized by the church. vast numbers of these miracles are in all respects similar to those narrated in the gospels, and they comprise hundreds of cases of restoration of the dead to life. if it be necessary to point out instances in comparatively recent times, we may mention the miracles of this kind liberally ascribed to st francis of assisi, in the th century, and to his namesake st. francis xavier, in the th, as pretty well known to all, although we might refer to much more recent miracles authenticated by the church. at the present day such phenomena have almost disappeared, and, indeed, with the exception of an occasional winking picture, periodical liquefaction of blood, or apparition of the virgin, confined to the still ignorant and benighted corners of the earth, miracles are extinct. { } chapter vi. miracles in relation to ignorance and superstition we have maintained that the miracles which are reported after apostolic days, instead of presenting the enormous distinction which dr. mozley asserts, are precisely of the same types in all material points as the earlier miracles. setting aside miracles of a trivial and unworthy character, there remains a countless number cast in the same mould as those of the gospels,--miraculous cure of diseases, expulsion of demons, transformation of elements, supernatural nourishment, resurrection of dead--of many of which we have quoted instances. dr. mozley anticipates an objection and says: "it will be urged, perhaps, that a large portion even of the gospel miracles are of the class here mentioned as ambiguous; cures, visions, expulsions of evil spirits; but this observation does not affect the character of the gospel miracles as a body, because we judge of the body or whole from its highest specimen, not from its lowest." he takes his stand upon, "e.g. our lord's resurrection and ascension."( ) now, without discussing the principle laid down here, it is evident that the great distinction between the gospel and other miracles is thus narrowed to a very small compass. it is admitted that the mass of the gospel miracles are of a class characterized as ambiguous, because "the current { } miracles of human history" are also chiefly of the same type, and the distinctive character is derived avowedly only from a few high specimens, such as the resurrection. we have already referred to the fact that in the synoptic gospels there is only one case, reported by the third gospel alone, in which jesus is said to have raised the dead. st. augustine alone, however, chronicles several cases in which life was restored to the dead. post-apostolic miracles, therefore, are far from lacking this ennobling type. observe that dr. mozley is here not so much discussing the reality of the subsequent miracles of the church, as contrasting them and other reputed miracles with those of the gospel, and from this point of view it is impossible to maintain that the gospels have a monopoly of the highest class of miracles. such miracles are met with long before the dawn of christianity, and continued to occur long after apostolic times. much stress is laid upon the form of the gospel miracles; but as we have already shown, it is the actual resurrection of the dead, for instance, which is the miracle, and this is not affected by the more or less dramatic manner in which it is said to have been effected, or in which the narrative of the event is composed. literary skill, and the judicious management of details, may make or mar the form of any miracle. the narrative of the restoration of the dead child to life by elisha might have been more impressive, had the writer omitted the circumstance that the child sneezed seven times before opening his eyes, and dr. mozley would probably have considered the miracle greater had the prophet merely said to the child, "arise!" instead of stretching himself on the body; but setting aside human cravings { } for the picturesque and artistic, the essence of the miracle would have remained the same. there is one point, however, regarding which it may be well to make a few remarks. whilst a vast number of miracles are ascribed to direct personal action of saints, many more are attributed to their relics. now this is no exclusive characteristic of later miracles, but christianity itself shares it with still earlier times. the case in which a dead body which touched the bones of elisha was restored to life will occur to every one. "and it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of moabites; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."( ) the mantle of elijah smiting asunder the waters before elisha may be cited as another instance.( ) the woman who touches the hem of the garment of jesus in the crowd is made whole,( ) and all the sick and "possessed" of the country are represented as being healed by touching jesus, or even the mere hem of his garment.( ) it was supposed that the shadow of peter falling on the sick as he passed had a curative effect,( ) and it is very positively stated: "and god wrought miracles of no common kind by the hands of paul; so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." ( ) the argument which assumes an enormous distinction { } between gospel and other miracles betrays the prevalent scepticism, even in the church, of all miracles except those which it is considered an article of faith to maintain. if we inquire how those think who are more logical and thorough in their belief in the supernatural, we find the distinction denied. "the question," says dr. newman, "has hitherto been argued on the admission, that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character and circumstances, between the miracles of scripture and those of church history; but this is by no means the case. it is true, indeed, that the miracles of scripture, viewed as a whole, recommend themselves to our reason, and claim our veneration beyond all others, by a peculiar dignity and beauty; but still it is only as a whole that they make this impression upon us. some of them, on the contrary, fall short of the attributes which attach to them in general; nay, are inferior in these respects to certain ecclesiastical miracles, and are received only on the credit of the system of which they form part. again, specimens are not wanting in the history of the church, of miracles as awful in their character, and as momentous in their effects, as those which are recorded in scripture."( ) now here is one able and thorough supporter of miracles denying the enormous distinction between those of the gospel and those of human history, which another admits to be essential to the former as evidence of a revelation. dr. mozley, however, meets such a difficulty by asserting that there would be no disadvantage to the gospel miracles, and no doubt regarding them involved, if for some later miracles there was evidence as strong as for those of the gospel. "all the result would be," he says, { } "that we should admit these miracles over and above the gospel ones."( ) he denies the equality of the evidence, however, in any case. "between the evidence, then, upon which the gospel miracles stand, and that for later miracles we see a broad distinction arising, not to mention again the nature and type of the gospel miracles themselves--from the contemporaneous date of the testimony to them, the character of the witnesses, the probation of the testimony; especially when we contrast with these points the false doctrine and audacious fraud which rose up in later ages, and in connection with which so large a portion of the later miracles of christianity made their appearance."( ) we consider the point touching the type of the gospel miracles disposed of, and we may, therefore, confine ourselves to the rest of this argument. if we look for any external evidence of the miracles of jesus in any marked effect produced by them at the time they are said to have occurred, we find anything but confirmation of the statements of the gospels. it is a notorious fact that, in spite of these miracles, very few of the jews amongst whom they were performed believed in jesus, and that christianity made its chief converts not where the supposed miracles took place, but where an account of them was alone given by enthusiastic missionaries. such astounding exhibitions of power as raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, walking on the sea, changing water into wine, and indefinitely multiplying a few loaves and fishes, not only did not make any impression on the jews themselves, but were never heard of out of palestine until long after the events are said to have occurred, when the narrative of them was slowly disseminated by christian teachers and writers. { } dr. mozley refers to the contemporary testimony "for certain great and cardinal gospel miracles which, if granted, clear away all antecedent objection to the reception of the rest," and he says: "that the first promulgators of christianity asserted, as a fact which had come under the cognizance of their senses, the resurrection of our lord from the dead, is as certain as anything in history."( ) what they really did assert, so far from being so certain as dr. mozley states, must, as we shall hereafter see, be considered matter of the greatest doubt. but if the general statement be taken that the resurrection, for instance, was promulgated as a fact which the early preachers of christianity themselves believed to have taken place, the evidence does not in that case present the broad distinction he asserts. the miracles recounted by st athanasius and st. augustine, for example, were likewise proclaimed with equal clearness, and even greater promptitude and publicity at the very spot where many of them were said to have been performed, and the details were much more immediately reduced to writing. the mere assertion in neither case goes for much as evidence, but the fact is that we have absolutely no contemporaneous testimony at all as to what the first promulgators of christianity actually asserted, or as to the real grounds upon which they made such assertions. we shall presently enter upon a thorough examination of the testimony for the gospel narratives, their authorship and authenticity, but we may here be permitted, so far to anticipate, as to remark that, applied to documentary evidence, dr. mozley's reasoning from the contemporaneous date of the testimony, and the character of { } the witnesses, is contradicted by the whole history of new testament literature. whilst the most uncritically zealous assertors of the antiquity of the gospels never venture to date the earliest of them within a quarter of a century from the death of jesus, every tyro is aware that there is not a particle of evidence of the existence of our gospels until very long after that interval,--hereafter we shall show how long;--that two of our synoptic gospels at least were not, in any case, composed in their present form by the writers to whom they are attributed; that there is, indeed, nothing worthy of the name of evidence that any one of these gospels was written at all by the person whose name it bears; that the second gospel is attributed to one who was not an eye-witness, and of whose identity there is the greatest doubt even amongst those who assert the authorship of mark; that the third gospel is an avowed later compilation,( ) and likewise ascribed to one who was not a follower of jesus himself; and that the authorship of the fourth gospel and its historical character are amongst the most unsettled questions of criticism, not to use here any more definite terms. this being the state of the case it is absurd to lay such emphasis on the contemporaneous date of the testimony, and on the character of the witnesses, since it has not even been determined who those witnesses are, and two even of the supposed evangelists were not personal eye-witnesses at all.( ) surely the testimony of athanasius regarding the miracles of st. anthony, and that of augustine regarding luke i. -- . we need scarcely point out that paul, to whom so many of the writings of the new testament are ascribed, and who practically is the author of ecclesiastical christianity, not only was not an eye-witness of the gospel miracles but never even saw jesus. { } his list of miracles occurring in or close to his own diocese, within two years of the time at which he writes, or, to refer to more recent times, the evidence of pascal for the port-royal miracles, must be admitted, not only not to present the broad distinction of evidence of which dr. mozley speaks, but on the contrary to be even more unassailable than that of the gospel miracles. the church, which is the authority for those miracles, is also the authority for the long succession of such works wrought by the saints. the identity of the writers we have instanced has never been doubted; their trustworthiness, in so far as stating what they believe to be true is concerned, has never been impugned; the same could be affirmed of writers in every age who record such miracles. the broad distinction of evidence for which dr. mozley contends, does not exist; it does not lie within the scope of his lectures either to define or prove it, and he does not of course commit the error of assuming the inspiration of the records. the fact is that theologians demand evidence for later miracles, which they have not for those of the gospels, and which transmitted reverence forbids their requiring. they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. dr. mozley points to the life of sacrifice and suffering of the apostles as a remarkable and peculiar testimony to the truth of the gospel miracles, and notably of the resurrection and ascension.( ) without examining, here, how much we really know of those lives and sufferings, one thing is perfectly evident: that sacrifice, suffering, and martyrdom itself are evidence of nothing except of the personal belief of the person enduring them; they do not prove the truth of the doctrines believed. no { } one doubts the high religious enthusiasm of the early christians, or the earnest and fanatical zeal with which they courted martyrdom, but this is no exclusive characteristic of christianity. every religion has had its martyrs, every error its devoted victims. does the marvellous endurance of the hindoo, whose limbs wither after years of painful persistence in vows to his deity, prove the truth of brahmanism? or do the fanatical believers who cast themselves under the wheels of the car of jagganath establish the soundness of their creed? do the jews, who for centuries bore the fiercest contumelies of the world, and were persecuted, hunted, and done to death by every conceivable torture for persisting in their denial of the truth of the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, and in their rejection of jesus christ, do they thus furnish a convincing argument for the truth of their belief and the falsity of christianity? or have the thousands who have been consigned to the stake by the christian church herself for persisting in asserting what she has denounced as damnable heresy, proved the correctness of their views by their sufferings and death? history is full of the records of men who have honestly believed every kind of error and heresy, and have been stedfast to the death, through persecution and torture, in their mistaken belief. there is nothing so inflexible as superstitious fanaticism, and persecution, instead of extinguishing it, has invariably been the most certain means of its propagation. the sufferings of the apostles, therefore, cannot prove anything beyond their own belief, and the question what it was they really did believe and suffered for is by no means so simple as it appears. now the long succession of ecclesiastical and other { } miracles has an important bearing upon those of the new testament, whether we believe or deny their reality. if we regard the miracles of church history to be in the main real, the whole force of the gospel miracles, as exceptional supernatural evidence of a divine revelation, is annihilated. the "miraculous credentials of christianity" assume a very different aspect when they are considered from such a point of view. admitted to be scarcely recognizable from miracles wrought by satanic agency, they are seen to be a continuation of wonders recorded in the old testament, to be preceded and accompanied by pretension to similar power on the part of the jews and other nations, and to be succeeded by cycles of miracles, in all essential respects the same, performed subsequently for upwards of fifteen hundred years. supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature certainly betrays a great want of force and divine speciality. how could that be considered as express evidence for a new divine revelation which was already so well known to the world, and which is scattered broad-cast over so many centuries, as well as successfully simulated by satan? if, on the other hand, we dismiss the miracles of later ages as false, and as merely the creations of superstition or pious imagination, how can the miracles of the gospel, which are precisely the same in type, and not better established as facts, remain unshaken? the apostles and evangelists were men of like passions, and also of like superstitions with others of their time, and must be measured by the same standard. dr. mozley will not admit that, even in such a case, the difficulty of distinguishing the true miracles amongst the mass of { } spurious justifies the rejection of all, and he demands a judicial process in each case, and settlement according to the evidence in that case.( ) we might reply that if the great mass of asserted miracles be determined to be spurious, there is no reason shown for entering upon a more minute consideration of pretensions, which knowledge and experience force us _à priori_ to regard as incredible, and which examination, in so many cases, has proved to be delusion. even if the plea, that "the evidence of the gospel miracles is a special case which must be decided on its own grounds," be admitted, it must be apparent that the rejection of the mass of other miracles is serious presumptive evidence also against them. . the argument for the reality of miracles receives very little strength from the character of either the early or the later ages of christianity. "it is but too plain," says dr. mozley, "in discussing ecclesiastical miracles, that in later ages, as the church advanced in worldly power and position, besides the mistakes of imagination and impression, a temper of deliberate and audacious fraud set itself in action for the spread of certain doctrines, as well as for the great object of the concentration of church power in one absolute monarchy."( ) we have already quoted words of dean milman regarding the frame of mind of the early church, and it may not be out of place to add a few lines from the same writer. speaking of the writings of the first ages of christianity, he says: "that some of the christian legends were deliberate forgeries can scarcely be questioned; the principle of pious fraud { } appeared to justify this mode of working on the popular mind; it was admitted and avowed. to deceive into christianity was so valuable a service as to hallow deceit itself. but the largest portion was probably the natural birth of that imaginative excitement which quickens its day-dreams and nightly visions into reality. the christian lived in a supernatural world; the notion of the divine power, the perpetual interference of the deity, the agency of the countless invisible beings which hovered over mankind, was so strongly impressed upon the belief, that every extraordinary, and almost every ordinary incident became a miracle, every inward emotion a suggestion either of a good or an evil spirit. a mythic period was thus gradually formed, in which reality melted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history."( ) whether we look upon this picture or on that, the result is equally unfavourable to miracles, and a ready explanation both of the earlier and later instances is suggested. we must, however, again recall the fact that, setting aside for the present the effect of pious fraud, this vivid and superstitious imagination, which so freely created for itself the miraculous, was not merely developed by christianity, but was equally rampant before it, and was a marked characteristic of the jews. the same writer, in a passage already quoted, says: "during the whole life of christ, and the early propagation of the religion, it must be borne in mind that they took place in an age, and among a people which superstition had made so familiar with what were supposed to be preternatural events, that wonders awakened no emotion, or were speedily superseded by some new demand on the ever { } ready belief. the jews of that period not only believed that the supreme being had the power of controlling the course of nature, but that the same influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits, both good and evil."( ) between the "superstition," "imaginative excitement," and "pious fraud" of the early church, and the "deliberate and audacious fraud" of the later, we have abundant material for the natural explanation of all supposed miracles, without going to such an extreme hypothesis as exceptions to the order of nature, or supposing that a few miracles can be accepted as supernatural facts, whilst all the rest must be discarded as human fables. it is certain that throughout the whole period during which miracles are said to have been performed, gross ignorance and superstition prevailed, and nowhere more so than amongst the jews where those miracles occurred. almost every operation of nature was inexplicable, and everything which was inexplicable was considered supernatural. miracles seemed as credible to the mind of that age as deviations from the order of nature seem incredible in ours. it is a suggestive fact that miracles are limited to periods when almost every common incident was readily ascribed to supernatural agency. there is, however, one remarkable circumstance which casts some light upon the origin of narratives of miracles. throughout the new testament, patristic literature, and the records of ecclesiastical miracles, although we have narratives of countless wonderful works performed by others than the writers, and abundant assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the church, there is no instance whatever, that we can remember, in which { } a writer claims to have himself performed a miracle.( ) wherever there has existed even the comparatively accurate means of information which a person who himself performed a miracle might possess, the miraculous entirely fails, and it is found only where faith or credulity usurps the place of knowledge. pious men were perfectly ready to believe the supposed miracles of others, and to report them as facts, who were too veracious to imagine any of their own. even if apostles and saints had chronicled their own miraculous deeds, the argument for their reality would not have been much advanced; but the uniform absence of such personal pretension enables us more clearly to trace such narratives to pious credulity or superstition. if we consider the particular part which miracles have played in human history, we find precisely the phenomena which might have been expected if miracles, instead of being considered as real occurrences, were recognized as the mistakes or creations of ignorance and superstition during that period in which "reality melted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history." their occurrence is limited to ages which were totally ignorant of physical laws, and they have been numerous or rare precisely in proportion to the degree of imagination and love of the marvellous characterizing the people amongst whom they are said to have occurred. instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one epoch of history, and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we find miracles represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries. the gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders, which commenced this is fully discussed in the third volume. { } many centuries before the dawn of christianity and continued, without interruption, for fifteen hundred years after it. they did not in the most remote degree originate the belief in miracles, or give the first suggestion of spurious imitation. it may, on the contrary, be much more truly said that the already existing belief created these miracles. no divine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the divine revelation. the miracles with which the history of the world is full occurred in ages of darkness and superstition, and they gradually ceased when enlightenment became more generally diffused. at the very time when knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of the reality of miracles, these wonders entirely failed. this extraordinary cessation of miracles, precisely at the time when their evidence might have acquired value by an appeal to persons capable of appreciating them, is perfectly unintelligible if they be viewed as the supernatural credentials of a divine revelation. if, on the other hand, they be regarded as the mistakes of imaginative excitement and ignorance, nothing is more natural than their extinction at the time when the superstition which created them gave place to knowledge. as a historical fact, there is nothing more certain than that miracles, and the belief in them, disappeared exactly when education and knowledge of the operation of natural laws became diffused throughout europe, and that the last traces of belief in supernatural interference with the order of nature are only to be found in localities where ignorance and superstition still prevail, and render delusion or pious fraud of that description possible. miracles are now denied to places more enlightened { } than naples or la salette. the inevitable inference from this fact is fatal to the mass of miracles, and it is not possible to protect them from it. miracle cures by the relics of saints, upheld for fifteen centuries by all the power of the church, utterly failed when medical science, increasing in spite of persecution, demonstrated the natural action of physiological laws. the theory of the demoniacal origin of disease has been entirely and for ever dispelled, and the host of miracles in connection with it retrospectively exploded by the progress of science. witchcraft and sorcery, the belief in which reigned supreme for so many centuries, are known to have been nothing but the delusions of ignorant superstition. "a l'époque où les faits merveilleux qui s'y (dans les légendes) trouvent consignés étaient rapportés," asks an able french writer, "possé dait-on les lumieres suffisantes pour exercer une critique véritable et sérieuse sur des témoignages que venaient affirmer des faits en contradiction avec nos connaissances? or, on peut assurer hardiment que non. au moyen-age, l'intime conviction que la nature voit tres fréquemment ses lois interverties par la volonté divine régnait dans les esprits, en sorte que pour peu qu'un fait se présentat avec des apparences extraordinaires, on se hatait de le regarder comme un miracle, comme loeuvre directe de la divinité. aujourd'hui on cherche au contraire à tout rapporter à la loi commune; on est tellement sobre de faits miraculeux, que ceux qui paraissent tels sont ^cartes comme des fables ou tonus pour des faits ordinaires mal expliques. la foi aux miracles a disparu. en outre, au moyen-age le cercle des connaissances qu'on possédait sur la nature était fort restreint, et tout ce qui n'y rentrait pas était regardé comme surnatural. { } actuellement ce cercle s'agrandit sans cesse; et loin d'en avoir arreté définitivement la limite, on le déclare infini." in a note the writer adds: "on voit par la que le nombre des miracles doit etre en raison inverse du nombre des lois connues de la nature, et, qu'a mesure que celles-ci nous sont révélées, les faits merveilleux ou miraculeux s'évanouissent."( ) these remarks are equally applicable to the commencement of the christian era. on the one hand, we have no other testimony for the reality of miracles than that of ages in which not only the grossest superstition and credulity prevailed, but in which there was such total ignorance of natural laws that men were incapable of judging of that reality, even if they desired impartially to investigate such occurrences, which they did not; on the other hand, we have the sober testimony of science declaring such phenomena violations of the invariable laws of nature, and experience teaching us a perfectly simple and natural interpretation of the legends regarding them. are we to believe ignorance and superstition or science and unvarying experience? science has already demonstrated the delusion involved in the largest class of miracles, and has so far established the superiority of her testimony. in an early part of his discussion dr. mozley argues: "christianity is the religion of the civilized world, and l. f. alfred maury. essai sur los legendes pieuses du moyen-age, , p. f., and p. , note ( ). the same arguments are employed by the late mr. buckle. "hence it is that, supposing other things equal, the superstition of a nation must always bear an exact proportion to the extent of its physical knowledge. this may be in some degree verified by the ordinary experience of mankind. for if we compare the different classes of society, we shall find that they are superstitious in proportion as the phenomena with which they are brought in contact have or have not been explained by natural laws." hist, of civilization, , i. p. . { } it is believed upon its miraculous evidence. now, for a set of miracles to be accepted in a rude age, and to retain their authority throughout a succession of such ages, and over the ignorant and superstitious part of mankind, may be no such great result for the miracle to accomplish, because it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire. but this is not the state of the case which we have to meet on the subject of the christian miracles. the christian being the most intelligent, the civilized portion of the world, these miracles are accepted by the christian body as a whole, by the thinking and educated as well as the uneducated part of it, and the gospel is believed upon that evidence."( ) the picture of christendom here suggested is purely imaginary. we are asked to believe that succeeding generations of thinking and educated as well as uneducated men, since the commencement of the period in which the adequate inquiry into the reality of miracles became possible, have made that adequate inquiry, and have intelligently and individually accepted miracles and believed the gospel in consequence of their attestation. the fact, however, is that christianity became the religion of europe before men either possessed the knowledge requisite to appreciate the difficulties involved in the acceptance of miracles, or minds sufficiently freed from ignorant superstition to question the reality of the supposed supernatural interference with the order of nature, and belief had become so much a matter of habit that, in this nineteenth century, the great majority of men have professed belief for no better reason than that their fathers believed before them. belief is now little more than a transmitted quality or hereditary custom. few men, even { } now, have either the knowledge or the leisure requisite to enable them to enter upon such an examination of miracles as can entitle dr. mozley to affirm that they intelligently accept miracles for themselves. we have shown, moreover, that so loose are the ideas even of the clergy upon the subject, that dignitaries of the church fail to see either the evidential purpose of miracles or the need for evidence at all, and the first intelligent step towards inquiry--doubt--has generally been stigmatized almost as a crime. so far from dr. mozley's statement being correct, it is notorious that the great mass of those who are competent to examine, and who have done so, altogether reject miracles. instead of the "thinking and educated" men of science accepting miracles, they, as a body, distinctly deny them, and hence the antagonism between science and ecclesiastical christianity, and dr. mozley surely does not require to be told how many of the profoundest critics and scholars of germany, and of all other countries in europe, who have turned their attention to biblical subjects, have long ago rejected the miraculous elements of the christian religion. such being the case we necessarily revert to the first part of dr. mozley's representation, and find with him, that it is no great result for miracles to accomplish, merely to be accepted by, and retain authority over, a succession of ignorant and superstitious ages, "because it is easy to satisfy those who do not inquire." it is necessary that we should now refer to the circumstance that all the arguments which we have hitherto considered in support of miracles, whether to explain or account for them, have proceeded upon an assumption of the reality of the alleged phenomena. { } had it been first requisite to establish the truth of facts of such an astounding nature, the necessity of accounting for them might never have arisen. it is clear, therefore, that an assumption which permits the argument to attain any such position begs almost the whole question. facts, however astounding, which, it is admitted, did actually occur, claim a latitude of explanation, which a mere narrative of those alleged facts, written by an unknown person some eighteen centuries ago, could not obtain. if, for instance, it be once established as an absolute fact that a man actually dead, and some days buried, upon whose body decomposition had already made some progress,( ) had been restored to life, the fact of his death and of his subsequent resuscitation being so absolutely proved that the possibility of deception or of mistake on the part of the witnesses was totally excluded--if such conclusive evidence be supposed possible in such a case--it is clear that an argument, as to whether such an occurrence were to be ascribed to known or unknown laws, would assume a very different character indeed from that which it would have borne if the argument merely sought to account for so astounding a phenomenon of whose actual occurrence there was no sufficient evidence. it must not be forgotten, therefore, that, as the late professor baden powell pointed out: "at the present day it is not _a miracle_, but the _narrative of a miracle_, to which any argument can refer, or to which faith is accorded."( ) the discussion of miracles, then, is not one regarding miracles actually performed within our own knowledge, but merely regarding miracles said to have been performed eighteen hundred years ago, the reality of { } which was not verified at the time by any scientific examination, and whose occurrence is merely reported in the gospels. now, although dr. mozley rightly and logically maintains that christianity requires, and should be believed only upon, its miraculous evidence, the fact is that popular christianity is not believed because of miracles, but miracles are accepted because they are related in the gospels which are supposed to contain the doctrines of christianity. the gospels have for many generations been given to the child as inspired records, and doubt of miracles has, therefore, either never arisen or has been instantly suppressed, simply because miracles are recorded in the sacred volume. it could scarcely be otherwise, for in point of fact the gospel miracles stand upon no other testimony. we are therefore in this position: we are asked to believe astounding announcements beyond the limits of human reason, which, as br. mozley admits, we could only be justified in believing upon miraculous evidence, upon the testimony of miracles which are only reported by the records which also alone convey the announcements which those miracles were intended to accredit. there is no other contemporary evidence whatever. the importance of the gospels, therefore, as the almost solitary testimony to the occurrence of miracles can scarcely be exaggerated.( ) we have already dr. farrar, winding up the antecedent discussion, says: ".... we arrive at this point--that the credibility of miracles is in each instance simply and solely a question of evidence, and consequently that our belief or rejection of the christian miracles must mainly depend on the character of the gospels in which they are recorded." the witness of history to christ, , p. . it is somewhat singular that after such a declaration he considers it unnecessary to enter into the question of the genuineness and authenticity of the gospels, deeming it sufficient for his purpose, that strauss and renan admit that some portion of these documents existed at the beginning of the second century, or earlier, in the country where the events narrated took place. { } made an anticipatory remark regarding the nature of these documents, to which we may add that they are not the work of perfectly independent historians, but of men who were engaged in disseminating the new doctrines, and in saying this we have no intention of accusing the writers of conscious deception; it is, however, necessary to state the fact in order that the value of the testimony may be fairly estimated. the narratives of miracles were written by ardent partizans, with minds inflamed by religious zeal and enthusiasm, in an age of ignorance and superstition, a considerable time after the supposed miraculous occurrences had taken place. all history shows how rapidly pious memory exaggerates and idealizes the traditions of the past, and simple actions might readily be transformed into miracles, as the narratives circulated, in a period so prone to superstition and so characterized by love of the marvellous. religious excitement and reverence for the noblest of teachers could not, under such circumstances and in such an age, have escaped this exaggeration. how few men in more enlightened times have been able soberly to appreciate, and accurately to record exciting experiences, where feeling and religious emotion have been concerned. prosaic accuracy of observation and of language, at all times rare, are the last qualities we could expect to find in the early ages of christianity. in the certain fact that disputes arose among the apostles themselves so shortly after the death of their great master, we have one proof that even amongst them there was no accurate appreciation of the teaching of jesus,( ) and the frequent instances of their misunderstanding of very simple matters, and of their want of enlightenment, which occur throughout the { } gospels are certainly not calculated to inspire much confidence in their intelligence and accuracy of observation. now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by supernatural agency. the task would even then remain of demonstrating the particular supernatural being by whom the miracles were performed, which is admitted to be impossible. we have hitherto chiefly confined ourselves to a consideration of the antecedent credibility of such events, and of the fitness of those who are supposed to have witnessed them to draw accurate inferences from the alleged phenomena. those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the reality of occurrences in violation of an order of nature, which is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize that, even if the earliest asserted origin of our four gospels could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds, the testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--would be utterly incompetentto prove the reality of miracles. we have already sufficiently discussed this point, more especially in connection with hume's argument, and need not here resume it every consideration, historical and philosophical, has hitherto discredited the whole theory of miracles, and further inquiry might be abandoned as unnecessary. in order, however, to render our conclusion complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the gospel miracles to exceptional attention. if, instead of being { } clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eyewitnesses free from superstition, and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to miracles and the reality of divine revelation will be easy and conclusive. { } part ii. the synoptic gospels introduction. before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date, authorship, and character of the gospels, it may be well to make a few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of criticism. we shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to the date at which any of the gospels was actually written, but simply examine all the testimony which is extant with the view of ascertaining what is known of these works and their authors, certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely conjectured or inferred. modern opinion, in an inquiry like ours, must not be mistaken for ancient evidence. we propose, therefore, as exhaustively as possible to search all the writings of the early church for information regarding the gospels, and to examine even the alleged indications of their use. it is very important, however, that the silence of early writers should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to the gospels. when such writers, quoting largely from the old testament and other sources, deal { } with subjects which would naturally be assisted by reference to our gospels, and still more so by quoting such works as authoritative,--and yet we find that not only they do not show any knowledge of those gospels, but actually quote passages from unknown sources, or sayings of jesus derived from tradition,--the inference must be that our gospels were either unknown, or not recognized as works of authority at the time. it is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind, that a great number of gospels existed in the early church which are no longer extant, and of most of which even the names are lost. we need not here do more than refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement of the author of the third gospel: "forasmuch as many [--greek--] took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the things which have been accomplished among us," &c.( ) it is therefore evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar works were already in circulation. looking at the close similarity of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other and to our gospels, and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst the various forms of the "gospel according to the hebrews." when, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations closely resembling, or we may add, even identical with passages which are found in our gospels, the source of which, however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, the similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof that the quotation is necessarily from our gospels, and not from some other similar work { } now no longer extant,( ) and more especially not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from sources different from our gospels. whether regarded as historical records or as writings embodying the mere tradition of the early christians, our gospels cannot be recognized as the exclusive depositaries of the genuine sayings and doings of jesus. so far from the common possession by many works, in early times, of sayings of jesus in closely similar form being either strange or improbable, the really remarkable phenomenon is that such material variation in the report of the more important historical teaching should exist amongst them. but whilst similarity to our gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot prove the use of our gospels, variation from them would suggest or prove a different origin, and at least it is obvious that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our gospels cannot in any case necessarily indicate their existence. we shall in the course of the following pages more fully illustrate this, but such a statement is requisite at the very outset from the too general practice of referring every quotation of historical sayings of jesus exclusively to our gospels, as though they were the only sources of such matter which had ever existed. it is unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from apostolic times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of our gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away. indeed, requiring as we do clear, direct, and irrefragable evidence of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal to them as sufficient testimony,--if { } they could, under any circumstances be considered sufficient testimony,--for miracles and a direct divine revelation like ecclesiastical christianity. we propose to examine first, the evidence for the three synoptics and, then, separately, the testimony regarding the fourth gospel. { } chapter i. clement of rome--the epistle of barnabas--the pastor of hermas. the first work which presents itself for examination is the so-called first epistle of clement to the corinthians, which, together with a second epistle to the same community, likewise attributed to clement, is preserved to us in the codex alexandrinus,( ) a ms. assigned by the most competent judges to the second half of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, in which these epistles follow the books of the new testament. the second epistle, which is evidently not epistolary, but the fragment of a homily,( ) although it thus shares with the first the honour of a canonical position in one of the most ancient codices of the new testament, is not mentioned at all by the earlier fathers who refer to the first;( ) { } and eusebius,( ) who is the first writer who mentions it, expresses doubt regarding it, while jerome( ) and photius( ) state that it was rejected by the ancients. it is now universally regarded as spurious,( ) and dated about the end of the second century,( ) or later.( ) we shall hereafter see that many other pseudographs were circulated in the name of clement, to which, however, we need not further allude at present. there has been much controversy as to the identity of the clement to whom the first epistle is attributed. in early days he was supposed to be the clement { } mentioned in the epistle to the philippians (iv. )( ), but this is now generally doubted or abandoned,( ) and the authenticity of the epistle has, indeed, been called in question both by earlier and later critics.( ) it is unnecessary to detail the various traditions regarding the supposed writer, but we must point out that the epistle itself makes no mention of the author's name. it merely purports to be addressed by "the church of god which sojourns at rome to the church of god sojourning at corinth;" but in the codex alexandrinus, the title of "the first epistle of clement to the corinthians," is added at the end. clement of alexandria calls the supposed writer the "apostle clement:"( ) origen reports that many also ascribed to him the authorship of the epistle to the hebrews;( ) and photius mentions that he was likewise said to be the writer of the acts of the apostles.( ) we know that until a comparatively late date this epistle was quoted as holy scripture,( ) and was publicly read in the churches at the sunday meetings of christians.( ) it has, as we have seen, a place amongst { } the canonical books of the new testament in the codex alexandrinus, but it did not long retain that position in the canon, for although in the "apostolic canons"( ) of the sixth or seventh century both epistles appear, yet in the stichometry of nicephorus, a work of the ninth century, derived, however, as credner( ) has demonstrated, from a syrian catalogue of the fifth century, both epistles are classed among the apocrypha.( ) great uncertainty prevails as to the date at which the epistle was written. reference is supposed to be made to it by the so-called epistle of polycarp,( ) but, owing to the probable inauthenticity of that work itself, no weight can be attached to this circumstance. the first certain reference to it is by hegesippus, in the second half of the second century, mentioned by eusebius.( ) dionysius of corinth, in a letter ascribed to him addressed to soter, bishop of rome, is the first who distinctly mentions the name of clement as the author of the epistle.( ) there is some difference of opinion as to the order of his succession to the bishopric of rome. irenæus( ) and eusebius( ) say that he followed anacletus, and the latter adds the date of the twelfth year of the reign of domitian (a.d. - ), and that he died nine years after, in the third year of trajan's reign (a.d. ).( ) internal evidence( ) shows that the epistle was written after some persecution { } of the roman church, and the selection lies between the persecution under nero, which would suggest the date a.d. - , or that under domitian, which would assign the letter to the end of the first century, or to the beginning of the second. those who adhere to the view that the clement mentioned in the epistle to the philippians is the author, maintain that the epistle was written under nero.( ) one of their principal arguments for this conclusion is a remark occurring in chapter xli.: "not everywhere, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered up, or the votive offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but only in jerusalem. but even there they are not offered in every place, but only at the altar before the sanctuary, examination of the sacrifice offered being first made by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned."( ) from this it is concluded that the epistle was written before the destruction of the temple. it has, however, been shown that josephus,( ) the author of the "epistle to diognetus" (c. ), and others, long after the jewish worship of the temple was at an end, continually speak in the present tense of the temple worship in jerusalem; and it is evident, as cotelier long ago remarked, that this may be done with propriety even in the present { } day. the argument is therefore recognized to be without value.(l) tischendorf, who systematically adopts the earliest possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries, decides, without stating his reasons, that the grounds for the earlier date, about a.d. , as well as for the episcopate of clement from a.d. - ( ) are conclusive; but he betrays his more correct impression by classing clement, in his index, along with ignatius and polycarp, as representatives of the period: "first and second quarters of the second century:"( ) and in the prolegomena to his new testament he dates the episcopate of clement "ab anno usque ."( ) the earlier episcopate assigned to him by hefele upon most insufficient grounds is contradicted by the direct statements of irenæus, eusebius, jerome, and others who give the earliest lists of roman bishops,( ) as wrell as by the internal evidence of the epistle itself. in chapter xliv. the writer speaks of those appointed by the apostles to the oversight of the church, "or afterwards by other notable men, the whole church consenting.... who have for a long time been commended by all, &c.,"( ) which indicates successions of bishops since apostolic days. in another { } place (chap, xlvii.) he refers the corinthians to the epistle addressed to them by paul "in the beginning of the gospel" [--greek--], and speaks of "the most stedfast and ancient church of the corinthians" [--greek--], which would be absurd in an epistle written about a.d. . moreover, an advanced episcopal form of church government is indicated throughout the letter, which is quite inconsistent with such a date. the great mass of critics, therefore, have decided against the earlier date of the episcopate of clement, and assign the composition of the epistle to the end of the first century (a.d. - ).( ) others, however, date it still later. there is no doubt that the great number of epistles and { } other writings falsely circulated in the name of clement may well excite suspicion as to the authenticity of this epistle also, which is far from unsupported by internal proofs. of these, however, we shall only mention one. we have already incidentally remarked that the writer mentions the epistle of paul to the corinthians, the only instance in which any new testament writing is referred to by name; but along with the epistle of the "blessed paul" [--greek--] the author also speaks of the "blessed judith" [--greek--],( ) and this leads to the inquiry: when was the book of judith written? hitzig, volkmar, and others contend that it must be dated a.d. - ,( ) and if this be admitted, it follows of course that an epistle which already shows acquaintance with the book of judith cannot have been written before a.d. - at the earliest, which many, for this and other reasons, affirm to be the case with the epistle of pseudo-clement.( ) whatever date be assigned to it, however, it is probable that the epistle is interpolated, although it must be added that this is not the view of the majority of critics. it is important to ascertain whether or not this ancient christian epistle affords any evidence of the existence of { } our synoptic gospels at the time when it was written. tischendorf, who is ever ready to claim the slightest resemblance in language as a reference to new testament writings, states that although this epistle is rich in quotations from the old testament, and that clement here and there also makes use of passages from pauline epistles, he nowhere refers to the gospels.( ) this is perfectly true, but several passages occur in this epistle which are either quotations from evangelical works different from ours, or derived from tradition,( ) and in either case they have a very important bearing upon our inquiry. the first of these passages occurs in ch. xiii., and for greater facility of comparison, we shall at once place it both in the greek and in translation, in juxta-position with the nearest parallel readings in our synoptic gospels; and, as far as may be, we shall in the english version indicate differences existing in the original texts. the passage is introduced thus: "especially remembering the words of the lord jesus, which he spake teaching gentleness and long-suffering. for thus he said:"( )-- { } of course it is understood that, although for convenience { } of comparison we have broken up this quotation into these phrases, it is quite continuous in the epistle. it must be evident to any one who carefully examines the parallel passages, that "the words of the lord jesus" in the epistle cannot have been derived from our gospels. not only is there no similar consecutive discourse in them, but the scattered phrases which are pointed out as presenting superficial similarity with the quotation are markedly different both in thought and language. in it, as in the "beatitudes" of the "sermon on the mount" in the first gospel, the construction is peculiar and continuous: "do this.... in order that [--greek--]"; or, "as [--greek--]... so [--greek--]" the theor of a combination of passages from memory, which is usually advanced to explain such quotations, cannot serve here, for thoughts and expressions occur in the passage in the epistle which have no parallel at all in our gospels, and such dismembered phrases as can be collected from our first and third synoptics, for comparison with it, follow the course of the quotation in the ensuing order: matt. v. , vi. , part of vii. , phrase without parallel, first part of vii. , phrase without parallel, last part of vii. ; or, luke vi. , last phrase of vi. , vi. , first phrase of vi. , first phrase of vi. , phrase without parallel, last phrase of vi. . the only question with regard to this passage, therefore, is whether the writer quotes from an unknown written source or from tradition. he certainly merely professes to repeat "words of the lord jesus," and does not definitely indicate a written record, but it is much more probable, from the context, that he quotes from a gospel now no longer extant than that he derives this teaching from oral tradition. he introduces the quotation { } not only with a remark implying a well-known record: "remembering the words of the lord jesus which he spake, teaching, &c." but he reiterates: "for thus he said," in a way suggesting careful and precise quotation of the very words; and he adds at the end: "by this injunction and by these instructions let us establish ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to his holy words, thinking humbly of ourselves."( ) seems improbable that the writer would so markedly have indicated a precise quotation of words of jesus, and would so emphatically have commended them as the rule of life to the corinthians, had these precepts been mere floating tradition, until then unstamped with written permanence. the phrase: "as ye show kindness [--greek--] which is nowhere found in our gospels, recalls an expression quoted by justin martyr apparently from a gospel different from ours, and frequently repeated by him in the same form: "be ye kind and merciful [--greek--] father also is kind [--greek--] and merciful."( ) in the very next chapter of the epistle a similar reference again occurs: "let us be kind to each other [--greek--] according to the mercy and benignity of our creator."( ) without, however, going more minutely into this question, it is certain from its essential variations in language, thought and order, that the passage in the epistle cannot be claimed as a compilation from our gospels; and we shall presently see that some of the expressions in it which are foreign to our gospels are elsewhere quoted by other fathers, and there is reason to believe that these "words of the lord jesus" were not derived from tradition but { } from a written source different from our gospels.( ) when the great difference which exists between the parallel passages in the first and third synoptics, and still more between these and the second, is considered, it is easy to understand that other gospels may have contained a version differing as much from them as they do from each other. we likewise subjoin the next passage to which we must refer, with the nearest parallels in our synoptics. we may explain that the writer of the epistle is rebuking the corinthians for strifes and divisions amongst them, and for forgetting that they "are members one of another," and he continues: "remember the words of our lord jesus; for he said:"( ) { } this quotation is clearly not from our gospels, but must be assigned to a different written source. the writer would scarcely refer the corinthians to such words of jesus if they were merely traditional. it is neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory. the language throughout is markedly different from any passage in the synoptics, and to present even a superficial parallel, it is necessary to take a fragment of the discourse of jesus at the last supper regarding the traitor who should deliver him up (matth. xxvi. ), and join it to a fragment of his remarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst (xviii. ). the parallel passage in luke has not { } the opening words of the passage in the epistle at all, and the portion which it contains (xvii. ), is separated from the context in which it stands in the first gospel, and which explains its meaning. if we contrast the parallel passages in the three synoptics, their differences of context are very suggestive, and without referring to their numerous and important variations in detail, the confusion amongst them is evidence of very varying tradition.( ) this alone would make the existence of another form like that quoted in the epistle before us more than probable. tischendorf, in a note to his statement that clement nowhere refers to the gospels, quotes the passage we are now considering, the only one to which he alludes, and says: "these words are expressly cited as 'words of jesus our lord;' but they denote much more oral apostolic tradition than a use of the parallel passages in matthew (xxvi. , xviii. ) and luke (xvii. )."( ) it is now, of course, impossible to determine finally whether the passage was actually derived from tradition or from a written source different from our gospels, but in either case the fact is, that the epistle not only does not afford the slightest evidence for the existence of any of our gospels, but from only making use of tradition or an apocryphal work as the source of information regarding words of jesus, it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on behalf of the synoptics. { } before passing on, we may, in the briefest way possible, refer to one or two other passages, with the view of further illustrating the character of the quotations in this epistle. there are many passages cited which are not found in the old testament, and others which have no parallels in the new. at the beginning of the very chapter in which the words which we have just been considering occur, there is the following quotation: "it-is written: cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be made holy,"( ) the source of which is unknown. in a previous chapter the writer says: "and our apostles knew, through our lord jesus christ, that there will be contention regarding the name, [--greek--], office, dignity?) of the episcopate."( ) what was the writers authority for this statement? we find justin martyr quoting, as an express prediction of jesus: "there shall be schisms and heresies,"( ) which is not contained in our gospels, but evidently derived from an uncanonical source,( ) a fact rendered more apparent by the occurrence of a similar passage in the clementine homilies, still more closely bearing upon our epistle: "for there shall be, as the lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy."( ) hegesippus also speaks in a similar way: "from these came the { } false christs, false prophets, false apostles who divided the unity of the church."(l) as hegesippus, and in all probability justin martyr, and the author of the clementines made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, or to peter, it is most probable that these gospels contained passages to which the words of the epistle may refer.( ) it may be well to point out that the author also cites a passage from the fourth book of ezra, ii. :( ) "and i shall remember the good day, and i shall raise you from your tombs."( ) ezra reads: "et resuscitabo mor-tuos de locis suis et de monumentis educam illos," &c. the first part of the quotation in the epistle, of which we have only given the latter clause above, is taken from isaiah xxvi. , but there can be no doubt that the above is from this apocryphal book,( ) which, as we shall see, was much used in the early church. . we now turn to the so-called "epistle of barnabas," another interesting relic of the early church, many points in whose history have considerable analogy with that of the epistle of pseudo-clement. the letter itself bears no author's name, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special community. towards the { } end of the second century, however, tradition began to ascribe it to barnabas the companion of paul.( ) the first writer who mentions it is clement of alexandria, who calls its author several times the "apostle barnabas;"( ) and eusebius says that he gave an account of it in one of his works now no longer extant.( ) origen also refers to it, calling it a "catholic epistle," and quoting it as scripture.( ) we have already seen in the case of the epistles ascribed to clement of rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too familiar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by the fathers to apostles and their followers. in many cases such writings were deliberately inscribed with names well known in the church, but both in the case of the two epistles to the corinthians, and the letter we are now considering, no such pious fraud was attempted, nor was it necessary. credulous piety, which attributed writings to every apostle, and even to jesus himself, soon found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character. to barnabas, the friend of paul, not only this epistle was referred, but he was also reported by tertullian and others to be the author of the epistle to the hebrews;( ) and an apocryphal "gospel according to barnabas," said to have had close affinity with our { } first synoptic, is condemned along with many others in the decretal of gelasius.( ) eusebius, however, classes the so-called "epistle of barnabas" amongst the spurious books [--greek--],( ) and elsewhere also speaks of it as uncanonical.( ) jerome mentions it as read amongst apocryphal writings.( ) had the epistle been seriously regarded as a work of the "apostle" barnabas, it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank. that it was highly valued by the early church is shown by the fact that it stands, along with the pastor of hermas, after the canonical books of the new testament in the codex sinaiticus, which is probably the most ancient ms. of them now known. in the earlier days of criticism, some writers, without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the authorship of the epistle,( ) but the great mass of critics are now agreed in asserting that the composition, which itself is perfectly anonymous, cannot be attributed to barnabas the friend and fellow-worker of paul.( ) those who maintain the former opinion date { } the epistle about a.d. -- , or even earlier, but this is scarcely the view of any living critic. there are many indications in the epistle which render such a date impossible, but we do not propose to go into the argument minutely, for it is generally admitted that, whilst there is a clear limit further back than which the epistle cannot be set,( ) there is little or no certainty how far into the second century its composition may not reasonably be advanced. critics are divided upon the point; a few are disposed to date the epistle about the end of the first or beginning of the second century ( } while a still greater number assign it to the reign of hadrian (a.d. { } -- );( ) and others, not without reason, consider that it exhibits marks of a still later period.( ) it is probable that it is more or less interpolated.( ) until the discovery of the sinaitic ms., a portion of the "epistle of barnabas" was only known through an ancient latin version, the first four and a half chapters of the greek having been lost. the greek text, however, is now complete, although often very corrupt. the author quotes largely from the old testament, and also from apocryphal works.( ) he nowhere mentions any book or writer of the new testament, and with one asserted exception, which we shall presently examine, he quotes no passage agreeing with our gospels. we shall refer to these, commencing at once with the most important. in the ancient latin translation of the epistle, the only form, as we have just said, in which until the discovery { } of the codex sinaiticus the first four and a half chapters were extant, the following passage occurs: "adtendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut scriptum est, multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur."(l) "let us, therefore, beware lest we should be found, as it is written: many are called, few are chosen." these words are found in our first gospel (xxii. ), and as the formula by which they are here introduced--"it is written," is generally understood to indicate a quotation from holy scripture, it was and is argued by some that here we have a passage from one of our gospels quoted in a manner which shows that, at the time the epistle of barnabas was written, the "gospel according to matthew was already considered holy scripture."( ) whilst this portion of the text existed only in the latin version, it was argued that the "sicut scriptum est," at least, must be an interpolation, and in any case that it could not be deliberately applied, at that date, to a passage in any writings of the new testament. on the discovery of the sinaitic ms., however, the words were found in the greek text in that codex: [--greek--]. the question, therefore, is so far modified that, however much we may suspect the greek text of interpolation, it must be accepted as the basis of discussion that this passage, whatever its value, exists in the oldest, and indeed only (and this point must not be forgotten) complete ms. of the greek epistle. now with regard to the value of the expression "it is written," it may be remarked that in no case could its use in the epistle of barnabas indicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons to be presently given, be considered to represent the decision of the church. in the very same chapter in which the formula is used in connection with the passage we are considering, it is also employed to introduce a quotation from the book of enoch,( ) [--greek--], and elsewhere (c. xii.) he quotes from another apocryphal book( ) as one of the prophets.( )" again, he refers to the cross of christ in another prophet saying: 'and when shall these things come to pass? and the lord saith: when, &c. ... [--greek--], .......[--greek--]." he also quotes (ch. vi.) the apocryphal "book of wisdom" as holy scripture, and in like manner several other unknown works. when it is remembered that the epistle of clement to the corinthians, the pastor of hennas, the epistle of barnabas itself, and many other apocryphal works have been quoted by the fathers as holy scripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may be understood. with this passing remark, however, we proceed to say that this supposed quotation from matthew as holy scripture, by proving too much, destroys its own value as evidence. the generality of competent and { } impartial critics are agreed, that it is impossible to entertain the idea that one of our gospels could have held the rank of holy scripture at the date of this epistle, seeing that, for more than half a century after, the sharpest line was drawn between the writings of the old testament and of the new, and the former alone quoted as, or accorded the consideration of, holy scripture. if this were actually a quotation from our first gospel, already in the position of holy scripture, it would indeed be astonishing that the epistle, putting out of the question other christian writings for half a century after it, teeming as it does with extracts from the old testament, and from known, and unknown, apocryphal works, should thus limit its use of the gospel to a few words, totally neglecting the rich store which it contains, and quoting, on the other hand, sayings of jesus not recorded at all in any of our synoptics. it is most improbable that, if the author of the "epistle of barnabas" was acquainted with any one of our gospels, and considered it an inspired and canonical work, he could have neglected it in such a manner. the peculiarity of the quotation which he is supposed to make, which we shall presently point out, renders such limitation to it doubly singular upon any such hypothesis. the unreasonable nature of the assertion, however, will become more apparent as we proceed with our examination, and perceive that none of the early writers quote our gospels, { } if they knew them at all, but, on the other hand, make use of other works, and that the inference that matthew was considered holy scripture, therefore, rests solely upon this quotation of half a dozen words. the application of such a formula to a supposed quotation from one of our gospels, in so isolated an instance, led to the belief that, even if the passage were taken from our first synoptic, the author of the epistle in quoting it laboured under the impression that it was derived from some prophetical book.( ) we daily see how difficult it is to trace the source even of the most familiar quotations. instances of such confusion of memory are frequent in the writings of the fathers, and many can be pointed out in the new testament itself. for instance, in matt, xxvii. f. the passage from zechariah xi. - is attributed to jeremiah; in mark i. , a quotation from malachi iii. is ascribed to isaiah. in corinthians ii. , a passage is quoted as holy scripture which is not found in the old testament at all, but which is taken, as origen and jerome state, from an apocryphal work, "the revelation of elias,"( ) and the passage is similarly quoted by the so-called epistle of clement to the corinthians (xxxiv). then in what prophet did the author of the first gospel find the words (xiil ): "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,( ) saying: i will open my mouth in parables; i { } will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world "? orelli,( ) afterwards followed by many others,( ) suggested that the quotation was probably intended for one in iv ezra viii. : "nam multi creati sunt, pauci autem salvabuntur."( ) "for many are created, but few shall be saved." bretsclineider proposed as an emendation of the passage in ezra the substitution of "_vocati_" for "_creati_" but, however plausible, his argument did not meet with much favour.( ) along with this passage was also suggested a similar expression in iv ezra ix. : "plures sunt qui pereunt, quam qui salvabuntur." "there are more who perish than who shall be saved."( ) the greek of the three passages may read as follows:-- [--greek--] [--greek--] [--greek--] there can be no doubt that the sense of the reading in iv ezra is exactly that of the epistle, but the language is somewhat different. we must not forget, however, that the original greek of iv ezra( ) is lost, and that we are wholly dependent on the versions and mss. extant, regarding whose numerous variations and great { } corruption there are no differences of opinion. orelli's theory, moreover, is supported by the fact that the epistle, elsewhere, (c. xii) quotes from iv ezra (iv. , v. ). on examining the passage as it occurs in our first synoptic, we are at the very outset struck by the singular fact, that this short saying appears twice in that gospel with a different context, and in each case without any propriety of application to what precedes it, whilst it is not found at all in either of the other two synoptics. the first time we meet with it is at the close of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.( ) the householder engages the labourers at different hours of the day, and pays those who had worked but one hour the same wages as those who had borne the burden and heat of the day, and the reflection at the close is, xx. : "thus the last shall be first and the first last; for many are called but few chosen." it is perfectly evident that neither of these sayings, but especially not that with which we are concerned, has any connection with the parable at all. there is no question of many or few, or of selection or rejection; all the labourers are engaged and paid alike. if there be a moral at all to the parable, it is the justification of the master: "is it not lawful for me to do what i will with mine own?" it is impossible to imagine a saying more irrelevant to its context than "many are called but few chosen," in such a place. the passage occurs again (xxii. ) in connection with the parable of the king who made a marriage for his son. the guests who are at first invited refuse to come, and are destroyed by the king's armies; but the wedding is nevertheless "furnished { } with guests" by gathering together as many as are found in the highways. a new episode commences when the king comes in to see the guests (v. ). he observes a man there who has not on a wedding garment, and he desires the servants to (v. ) "bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness without," where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth;"( ) and then comes our passage (v. ): "for many are called but few chosen." now, whether applied to the first or to the latter part of the parable, the saying is irrelevant. the guests first called were in fact chosen as much as the last, but themselves refused to come, and of all those who, being "called" from the highways and byways, ultimately furnished the wedding with guests in their stead, only one was rejected. it is clear that the facts here distinctly contradict the moral that "few are chosen." in both places the saying is, as it were, "dragged in by the hair." on examination, however, we find that the oldest mss. of the new testament omit the sentence from matthew xx. . it is neither found in the sinaitic nor vatican codices, and whilst it has not the support of the codex alexandrinus, which is defective at the part, nor of the dublin rescript (z), which omits it, many other mss. are also without it. the total irrelevancy of the saying to its context, its omission by the oldest authorities from matth. xx. , where it appears in later mss., and its total absence from both of the other gospels, must at once strike every one as peculiar, and as very unfortunate, to say this is not the place to criticize the expectation of finding a wedding garment on a guest hurried in from highways and byways, or the punishment inflicted for such an offence, as questions affecting the character of the parable. { } the least of it, for those who make extreme assertions with regard to its supposed quotation by the epistle of barnabas. weizsacker, with great probability, suggests that in this passage we have merely a well-known proverb,( ) which the author of the first gospel has introduced into his work from some uncanonical or other source, and placed in the mouth of jesus.( ) certainly under the circumstances it can scarcely be maintained in its present context as a historical saying of jesus. ewald, who naturally omits it from matthew xx. , ascribes the parable xx. -- as well as that xxii. -- , in which it stands, originally to the spruchsammlung( ) or collection of discourses, out of which, with intermediate works, he considers that our first gospel was composed.( ) however this may be, there is, it seems to us, good reason for believing that it was not originally a part of these parables, and that it is not in that sense historical; and there is, therefore, no ground for asserting that it may not have been derived by the author of the gospel from some older work, from which also it may have come into the "epistle of barnabas."( ) { } there is, however, another passage which deserves to be mentioned. the epistle has the following quotation: "again, i will show thee how, in regard to us, the lord saith, he made a new creation in the last times. the lord saith: behold i make the first as the last."(l) even tischendorf does not pretend that this is a quotation of matth. xx. ,( ) "thus the last shall be first and the first last," [--greek--] the sense of which is quite different. the application of the saying in this place in the first, and indeed in the other, synoptic gospels is evidently quite false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. in xix. it is quoted a second time, quite irrelevantly, with some variation: "but many first shall be last and last first" [--greek--]. now it will be remembered that at xx. it occurs in several mss. in connection with "many are called but few are chosen," although the oldest codices omit the latter passage, and most critics consider it interpolated. the separate quotation of these two passages by the author of the epistle, with so marked a variation in the second, renders it most probable that he found both in the source from which he quotes. we have, however, more than sufficiently discussed this passage. the author of the epistle does not indicate any source from which he makes his quotation; and the mere existence in the first synoptic of a proverbial saying { } like this does not in the least involve the conclusion that it is necessarily the writing from which the quotation was derived, more especially as apocryphal works are repeatedly cited in the epistle. if it be maintained that the saying is really historical, it is obvious that the prescriptive right of our synoptic is at once excluded, and it may have been the common property of a score of evangelical works. there can be no doubt that many scriptural texts have crept into early christian writings which originally had no place there; and where attendant circumstances are suspicious, it is always well to remember the fact. an instance of the interpolation of which we speak is found in the "epistle of barnabas." in one place the phrase: "give to every one that asketh of thee" [--greek--]( ) occurs, not as a quotation, but merely woven into the greek text as it existed before the discovery of the sinaitic ms. this phrase is the same as the precept in luke vi. , although it was argued by some that, as no other trace of the third gospel existed in the epistle, it was more probably an alteration of the text of matth. v. . omitting the phrase from the passage in the epistle, the text read as follows: "thou shalt not hesitate to give, neither shalt thou murmur when thou givest... so shalt thou know who is the good recompenser of the reward." the supposed quotation, inserted where we have left a blank, really interrupted the sense and repeated the previous injunction. the oldest ms., the "codex sinaiticus," omits the quotation, and so ends the question, but it is afterwards inserted by another hand. some pious scribe, in fact, seeing the relation of the passage to the gospel, had added the { } words in the margin as a gloss, and they afterwards found their way into the text in this manner very many similar glosses have crept into texts which they were originally intended to illustrate. tischendorf, who does not allude to this, lays much stress upon the following passage: "but when he selected his own apostles, who should preach his gospel, who were sinners above all sin, in order that he might show that he came not to call the righteous but sinners, then he manifested himself to be the son of god."( ) we may remark that, in the common greek text, the words "to repentance" were inserted after "sinners," but they are not found in the sinaitic ms. in like manner many codices insert them in matth, ix. and mark ii. , but they are not found in some of the oldest mss., and are generally rejected. tischendorf considers them a later addition both to the text of the gospel and of the epistle.( ) but this very fact is suggestive. it is clear that a supposed quotation has been deliberately adjusted to what was considered to be the text of the gospel. why should the whole phrase not be equally an interpolation? we shall presently see that there is reason to think that it is so. alhough there is no quotation in the passage, who, asks tischendorf,( ) could mistake the words as they stand in matthew, ix. , "for i came not to call the righteous but sinners"? now this passage is referred to by origen in his work against celsus, in a way which indicates that the supposed quotation did not exist in his copy; origen says: "and as celsus has called { } the apostles of jesus infamous men, saying that they were tax-gatherers and worthless sailors, we have to remark on this, that, &c.... now in the catholic epistle of barnabas from which, perhaps, celsus derived the statement that the apostles were infamous and wicked men, it is written that 'jesus selected his own apostles who were sinners above all sin,"( )--and then he goes on to quote the expression of peter to jesus (luke v. ), and then i timothy, l , but he nowhere refers to the supposed quotation in the epistle. now, if we read the passage without the quotation, we have: "but when he selected his own apostles who should preach his gospel, who were sinners above all sin.... then he manifested himself to be the son of god." here a pious scribe very probably added in the margin the gloss: "in order that he might show that he came not to call the righteous but sinners," to explain the passage, and as in the case of the phrase: "give to every one that asketh of thee," the gloss became subsequently incorporated with the text. the epistle, however, goes on to give the only explanation which the author intended, and which clashes with that of the scribe. "for if he had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding him? seeing that looking on the sun that shall cease to be, the work of his hands, they have not even power to endure his rays. accordingly, the son of man came in the flesh for this, that he might bring to a head the number of their sins who had persecuted to death his prophets."( ) the argument of origen bears out this view, for he does not at all take the explanation of { } the gloss as to why jesus chose his disciples from such a class, but he reasons: "what is there strange, therefore, that jesus being minded to manifest to the race of men his power to heal souls, should have selected infamous and wicked men, and should have elevated them so far, that they became a pattern of the purest virtue to those who were brought by their persuasion to the gospel of christ."( ) the argument, both of the author of the epistle and of origen, is different from that suggested by the phrase under examination, and we consider it a mere gloss introduced into the text; which, as the [--greek--] shows, has, in the estimation of tischendorf himself, been deliberately altered. even if it originally formed part of the text, however, it would be wrong to affirm that it affords proof of the use or existence of the first gospel. the words of jesus in matt. ix. -- , evidently belong to the oldest tradition of the gospel, and, in fact, ewald ascribes them, apart from the remainder of the chapter, originally to the spruchsammlung, from which, with two intermediate books, he considers that our present matthew was composed.( } nothing can be more certain than that such sayings, if they be admitted to be historical at all, must have existed in many other works, and the mere fact of their happening to be also in one of the gospels which has survived, cannot prove its use, or even { } its existence at the time the epistle of barnabas was written, more especially as the phrase does not occur as a quotation, and there is no indication of the source from which it was derived. teschendorf, however, finds a further analogy between the epistle and the gospel of matthew, in ch. xii. "since, therefore, in the future, they were to say that christ is the son of david, fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked, david himself prophesies--"the lord said unto my lord, sit at my right hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool."( ) teschendorf upon this inquires: "could barnabas so write without the supposition, that his readers had matthew, xxii. . ff, before them, and does not such a supposition likewise infer the actual authority of matthew's gospel?"( ) such rapid argument and extreme conclusions are startling indeed, but, in his haste, our critic has forgotten to state the whole case. the author of the epistle has been elaborately showing that the cross of christ is repeatedly typified in the old testament, and at the commencement of the chapter, after quoting the passage from iv ezra, iv. , v. , he points to the case of moses, to whose heart "the spirit speaks that he should make a form of the cross," by stretching forth his arms in supplication, and so long as he did so israel prevailed over their enemies; and again he typified the cross, when he set up the brazen serpent upon which the people might look and be healed. then that which moses, as a prophet, said to joshua (jesus) the son of nave, when he gave him that { } name, was solely for the purpose that all the people might hear that the father would reveal all things regarding his son to the son of nave. this name being given to him when he was sent to spy out the land, moses said: "take a book in thy hands, and write what the lord saith, that the son of god will in the last days cut off by the roots all the house of amalek." this, of course, is a falsification of the passage, exodus, xvii. , for the purpose of making it declare jesus to be the "son of god." then proceeding in the same strain, he says: "behold again jesus is not the son of man, but the son of god, manifested in the type and in the flesh. since, therefore, in the future, they were to say that christ is the son of david," (and here follows the passage we are discussing) "fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked, david himself prophesied: 'the lord said unto my lord, sit at my right hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool.' and again, thus speaks isaiah: 'the lord said to christ my lord, whose right hand i have held, that the nations may obey him, and i will break in pieces the strength of kings.' behold how david calleth him lord, and the son of god." and here ends the chapter and the subject. now it is quite clear that the passage occurs, not as a reference to any such dilemma as that in matthew, xxii. ff., but simply as one of many passages which, at the commencement of our era, were considered prophetic declarations of the divinity of christ, in opposition to the expectation of the jews that the messiah was to be the son of david,( ) and, as we have seen, in order to prove his point the author alters the text. to argue that such a passage of a psalm, quoted in such a manner in this { } epistle, proves the use of our first synoptic, is in the highest degree arbitrary. we have already pointed out that the author quotes apocryphal works as holy scripture; and we may now add that he likewise cites words of jesus which are nowhere found in our gospels. for instance, in ch. vii. we meet with the folio wing expressions directly attributed to jesus. "thus he say': 'those who desire to behold me, and to attain my kingdom, must through tribulation and suffering receive me.'"( ) hilgenfeld( ) compares this with another passage, similar in sense, in iv ezra, vii. ; but in any case it is not a quotation from our gospels; ( ) and with so many passages in them suitable to his purpose, it would be amazing, if he knew and held matthew in the consideration which tischendorf asserts, that he should neglect their stores, and go elsewhere for such quotations. there is nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of evidence even of the existence of our gospels. . the pastor of hennas is another work which very nearly secured permanent canonical rank with the writings of the new testament. it was quoted as holy scripture by the fathers and held to be divinely inspired, and it was publicly read in the churches.( ) it has a { } place, with the "epistle of barnabas," in the sinaitic codex, after the canonical books. in early times it was attributed to the hermas who is mentioned in the epistle to the romans, xiv. , in consequence of a mere conjecture to that effect by origen;(l) but the canon of muratori( ) confidently ascribes it to a brother of pius, bishop of rome, and at least there does not seem any ground for the statement of origen.( ) it may have been written about the middle of the second century or a little earlier.( ) { } tischendorf dismisses this important memorial of the early christian church with a note of two lines, for it has no quotations either from the old or new testament.( ) he does not even suggest that it contains any indications of acquaintance with our gospels. the only direct quotation in the "pastor" is from an apocryphal work which is cited as holy scripture: "the lord is nigh unto them who return to him, as it is written in eldad and modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness."( ) this work, which appears in the stichometry of nicephorus amongst the apocrypha of the old testament, is no longer extant.( ) chapter ii. the epistles of ignatius--the epistle of polycarp although, in reality, appertaining to a very much later period, we shall here refer to the so-called "epistles of ignatius," and examine any testimony which they afford regarding the date and authenticity of our gospels. there are in all fifteen epistles bearing the name of ignatius. three of these, addressed to the virgin mary and the apostle john , exist only in a latin version, and these, together with five others directed to mary of cassobolita, to the tarsians, to the antiochans, to hero of antioch, and to the philippians, of which there are versions both in greek and latin, are universally admitted to be spurious, and may, so far as their contents are concerned, be at once dismissed from all consideration.( ) they are not mentioned by eusebius, nor does any early writer refer to them. of the remaining seven epistles, addressed to the ephesians, magnesians, trallians, romans, philadelphians, smyrnæans, and to polycarp, there are two distinct versions extant, one long version, of which there are both greek and latin texts, and another much shorter, and presenting considerable variations, of which there are also both greek and latin texts. after a couple of centuries of discussion, critics { } almost without exception have finally agreed that the longer version is nothing more than an interpolated version of the shorter and more ancient form of the epistles. the question regarding the authenticity of the ignatian epistles, however, was re-opened and complicated by the publication, in , by dr. cureton, of a syriac version of three epistles only--to polycarp, to the ephesians, and to the romans--in a still shorter form, discovered amongst a large number of mss. purchased by dr. tattam from the monks of the desert of nitria. these three syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be the only authentic epistles of ignatius, whilst others, who do not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven greek epistles, and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.( ) as early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed to ignatius. the magdeburg { } centuriators first attacked them, and calvin declared them to be spurious,( ) an opinion fully shared by dallaeus, and others; chemnitz regarded them with suspicion; and similar doubts, more or lass definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth century,( ) and onward to comparatively recent times,( ) although the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. that the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. fuller examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics either recognize that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, or that they { } can only be considered later and spurious compositions.( ) omitting for the present the so-called epistle of polycarp to the philippians, the earliest reference to any of these epistles, or to ignatius himself, is made by irenæus, who quotes a passage which is found in the epistle to the romans (ch. iv.), without, however, any mention of name,' introduced by the following words: "as a certain man of ours said, being condemned to the wild beasts on account of his testimony to god: 'i am the wheat of god, and by the teeth of beasts i am ground, that i may be found pure { } bread."( ) origen likewise quotes two brief sentences which he refers to ignatius. the first is merely: "but my love is crucified,"( ) which is likewise found in the epistle to the romans (ch. vii.); and the other quoted as "out of one of the epistles" of the martyr ignatius: "from the prince of this world was concealed the virginity of mary,"( ) which is found in the epistle to the ephesians (ch. xix). eusebius mentions seven epistles,( ) and quotes one passage from the epistle to the romans (ch. v.), and a few words from an apocryphal gospel contained in the epistle to the smyrnæans (ch. iii.), the source of which he says that he does not know, and he cites from irenæus the brief quotation given above, and refers to the mention of the epistles in the letter of polycarp which we reserve. elsewhere,( ) he further quotes a short sentence found in the epistle to the ephesians (ch. xix.), part of which had previously been cited by origen. it will be observed that all these quotations, with the exception of that from irenæus, are taken from the three epistles which exist in the syriac translation, and they are found in that version; and the first occasion on which any passage attributed to ignatius is quoted which is not in the syriac version of the three epistles occurs in the second half of the fourth century, when athanasius, in his epistle regarding the synods of ariminum and selucia,( ) quotes a few words from the epistle to the ephesians (ch. vii.); but although foreign to the syriac text, it is to be noted that the words are { } at least from a form of one of the three epistles which exist in that version.( ) it is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of the fourth century no quotation ascribed to ignatius, except one by eusebius, exists, which is not found in the three short syriac letters. as we have already remarked, the syriac version of the three epistles is very much shorter than the shorter greek version, the epistle to the ephesians, for instance, being only about one-third of the length of the greek text. those who still maintain the superior authenticity of the greek shorter version argue that the syriac is an epitome of the greek. this does not, however, seem tenable when the matter is carefully examined. although so much is absent from the syriac version, not only is there no interruption of the sense and no obscurity or undue curtness in the style, but the epistles read more consecutively, without faults of construction or grammar, and passages which in the greek text were confused and almost unintelligible have become quite clear in the syriac. the interpolations of the text, in fact, had been so clumsily made, that they had obscured the meaning, and their mere omission, without any other alteration of grammatical construction, has restored the epistles to clear and simple order.( ) it is, moreover, a remarkable fact that the passages which, long before the discovery of the syriac epistles, were pointed out as chiefly determining that the epistles were spurious, are not found in the syriac version at all. archbishop usher, who only admitted the authenticity of six epistles, showed that much interpolation of these letters took place in the { } sixth century,( ) but this very fact increases the probability of much earlier interpolation also, at which the various existing versions most clearly point. the interpolations can be explained upon the most palpable dogmatic grounds, but not so the omissions upon the hypothesis that the syriac version is an abridgment made upon any distinct dogmatic principle, for that which is allowed to remain renders the omissions ineffectual for dogmatic reasons. there is no ground of interest upon which the portions omitted and retained by the syriac version can be intelligently explained.( ) finally, here, we may mention that the mss. of the three syriac epistles are more ancient by some centuries than those of any of the greek versions of the seven epistles.( ) the strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led the majority of critics to recognize the syriac version as the most ancient form of the letters of ignatius extant, and this is admitted by many of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the epistles.( ) seven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally purporting to be by ignatius, simply because only that number was mentioned by eusebius, from whom for the first time, in the fourth century,--except the general reference in the so-called epistle of poly-carp, to which we shall presently refer,--we hear of them. now neither the silence of eusebius regarding the eight epistles, nor his mention of the seven, can have much weight in deciding the question of their authenticity. the only point which is settled by the reference { } of eusebius is that, at the date at which he wrote, seven epistles were known to him which were ascribed to ignatius. he evidently knew little or nothing regarding the man or the epistles, beyond what he had learnt from themselves,( ) and he mentions the martyr-journey to rome as a mere report: "it is said that he was conducted from syria to rome to be cast to wild beasts on account of his testimony to christ."( ) it would be unreasonable to argue that no other epistles existed simply because eusebius did not mention them; and on the other hand it would be still more unreasonable to affirm that the seven epistles are authentic merely because eusebius, in the fourth century,--that is to say, some two centuries after they are supposed to have been written,--had met with them. does any one believe the letter of jesus to abgarus prince of edessa to be genuine, because eusebius inserts it in his history( ) as an authentic document out of the public records of the city of edessa \ there is, in fact, no evidence that the brief quotations of irenæus and origen are taken from either of the extant greek versions of the epistles; for, as we have mentioned, they exist in the syriac epistles, and there is nothing to show the original state of the letters from which they were derived. nothing is more certain than the fact that, if any writer wished to circulate letters in the name of ignatius, he would insert such passages as were said to have been quoted from genuine epistles of ignatius, and supposing those quotations to be real, all that could be said on finding such passages would be that at least so much might be genuine.( ) it is a total { } mistake to suppose that the seven epistles mentioned by eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. these epistles are mixed up in the medicean and corresponding ancient latin mss. with the other eight epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour.( ) the recognition of the number seven may, therefore, be ascribed simply to the reference to them by eusebius, and his silence regarding the rest. what, then, is the position of the so-called ignatian epistles? towards the end of the second century, irenæus makes a very short quotation from a source unnamed, which eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an epistle attributed to ignatius. origen, in the third century, quotes a very few words which he ascribes to ignatius, although without definite reference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to ignatius. there is no other evidence. there are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which are attributed to ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three which are only known in a latin version, we possess both greek and latin versions. of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by eusebius--we have two greek versions, one of which is very much shorter than the other; and finally we now possess a syriac version of three epistles only( ) in a form still shorter than the shorter greek version, in which are found all the quotations of the fathers, without exception, up to the fourth century. eight of the fifteen it is worthy of remark that at the end of the syriac version the subscription is: "here end the three epistles of ignatius, bishop and martyr;" cf. cureton, the ancient syriac version, &c, p. . { } epistles are universally rejected as spurious. the longer greek version of the remaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as grossly interpolated; and the great majority of critics recognize that the shorter greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the syriac version, which so far as mss. are concerned is by far the most ancient text of any of the letters which we posses, reduces their number to three, and their contents to a very small compass indeed. it is not surprising that the vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more or less strong regarding the authenticity of all of these epistles, and that so large a number have repudiated them altogether. one thing is quite evident,--that amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation, and fraud, the ignatian epistles cannot in any form be considered evidence on any important point.( ) we have not, however, finished. all of these epistles, including the three of the syriac recension, profess to have been written by ignatius during his journey from antioch to rome, in the custody of roman soldiers, in order to be exposed to wild beasts, the form of martyrdom to which he had been condemned. the writer describes the circumstances of his journey as follows: "from syria even unto rome i fight with wild beasts, by sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even receiving benefits become worse."( ) now if this account be in the least degree true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could have found means to write { } so many long epistles, entering minutely into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government? indeed it may be asked why ignatius should have considered it necessary in such a journey, even if the possibility be for a moment conceded, to address such epistles to communities and individuals to whom, by the showing of the letters themselves, he had just had opportunities of addressing his counsels in person.( ) the epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such circumstances, and it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as the quotation above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned. and not only this, but on his way to martyrdom, he has, according to the epistles,( ) perfect freedom to see his friends. he receives the bishops, deacons, and members of various christian communities, who come with greetings to him, and devoted followers accompany him on his journey. all this without hindrance from the "ten leopards," of whose cruelty he complains, and without persecution or harm to those who so openly declare themselves his friends and fellow believers. the whole story is absolutely incredible.( ) this conclusion, irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by facte arrived at from a totally different point of view. { } it has been demonstrated that, most probably, ignatius was not sent to rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in antioch itself(l) on the th december, a.d. ,( ) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by the earthquake which took place on the th of that month.( ) there are no less than three martyrologies of ignatius,( ) giving an account of the martyr's journey from antioch to rome, but they are all recognised to be mere idle legends, of whose existence we do not hear till a very late period.( ) in fact the whole of the ignatian literature is a mass of falsification and fraud. we might well spare our readers the trouble of examining further the contents of the epistles of pseudo-ignatius, for it is manifest that they cannot afford testimony { } of any value on the subject of our inquiry. we shall, however, briefly point out all the passages contained in the seven greek epistles which have any bearing upon our synoptic gospels, in order that their exact position may be more fully appreciated. teschendorf( ) refers to a passage in the epistle to the romans, c. vi., as a verbal quotation of matthew xvi. , but he neither gives the context nor states the facts of the case. the passage reads as follows: "the pleasures of the world shall profit me nothing, nor the kingdoms of this time; it is better for me to die for jesus christ, than to reign over the ends of the earth. for what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul."( ) now this quotation not only is not found in the syriac version of the epistle, but it is also omitted from the ancient latin version, and is absent from the passage in the work of timotheus of alexandria against the council of chalcedon, and from other authorities. it is evidently a later addition, and is recognized as such by most critics.( ) it was probably a gloss, which subsequently was inserted in the text. of these facts, however, tischendorf does not say a word.( ) the next passage to which he refers is in the epistle to the smyrnæans, c. i., where the writer says of jesus: "he was baptized by john in order that all righteousness { } might be fulfilled by him,"( )--which teschendorf considers a reminiscence of matthew iii. , "for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."( ) the phrase, besides being no quotation, has again all the appearance of being an addition; and when in ch. iii. of the same epistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal gospel, which jerome states to be the "gospel according to the hebrews," to which we shall presently refer, a gospel which we know to have contained the baptism of jesus by john, it is not possible, even if the epistle were genuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words. there is not only the alternative of tradition, but the use of the same apocryphal gospel, elsewhere quoted in the epistle, as the source of the reminiscence. tischendorf does not point out any more supposed references to our synoptic gospels, but we proceed to notice all the other passages which have been indicated by others. in the epistle to polycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs: "be thou wise as a serpent in everything, and harmless as the dove." this is, of course, compared with matth. x. , "be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and innocent as doves." the greek of both reads as follows: [--greek--] in the syriac version, the passage reads: "be thou wise as the serpent in everything, and harmless as to those things which are requisite as the dove."( ) it is unnecessary { } to add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence. ewald assigns this part of our first gospel originally to the spruchsammlung,( ) and even apart from the variations presented in the epistle there is nothing to warrant exclusive selection of our first gospel as the source of the saying. the remaining passages we subjoin in parallel columns. none of these passages are quotations, and they generally present such marked linguistic variations from the parallel { } passages in our first gospel, that there is not the slightest ground for specially referring them to it. the last words cited are introduced without any appropriate context. in no case are the expressions indicated as quotations from, or references to, any particular source. they may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous gospels current in the early church, such as the gospel according to the hebrews. that the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted. in the epistle to the smyrnaeans, c. iii., there occurs a quotation from an apocryphal gospel to which we have already, in passing, referred: "for i know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and i believe he is so now. and when he came to those who were with peter, he said to them: lay hold, handle me, and see that i am not an incorporeal spirit, [--greek--]. and immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." eusebius, who quotes this passage, says that he does not know whence it is taken.( ) origen, however, quotes it from a work well known in the early church, called "the doctrine of peter," [--greek--];( ) and jerome found it in the "gospel according to the hebrews," in use among the nazarenes,( ) which he translated, as we shall hereafter sec. it was, no doubt, in both of those works. the narrative, luke xxiv. f., being neglected, and an apocryphal gospel used here, the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive. as it is certain that this quotation was taken from a source { } different from our gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other passages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. the passage on the three mysteries in the epistle to the ephesians, c. xix., is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source.( ) we must, however, again point out that, with the single exception of the short passage in the epistle to polycarp, c. ii., which is not a quotation, differs from the reading in matthew, and may well be from any other source, none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic gospels are found in the syriac version of the three epistles. the evidential value of the seven greek epistles is clearly stated by an english historian and divine: "my conclusion is, that i should be unwilling to claim historical authority for any passage not contained in dr. cureton's syriac reprint."( ) we must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, if indeed they possess any value at all. the whole of the literature ascribed to ignatius is, in fact, such a tissue of fraud and imposture, and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks of the grossest interpolation, that even if any small original element exist referrible to ignatius, it is impossible to define it, or to distinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is authentic and what is spurious. the epistles do not, however, in any case afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic gospels. { } . we have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called epistle of polycarp to the philippians, from the fact that, instead of proving the existence of the epistles of ignatius, with which it is intimately associated, it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to be in authentic. we have just seen that the martyr-journey of ignatius to rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious. the epistle of polycarp, however, not only refers to the martyr-journey (c. ix.), but to the ignatian epistles which are inauthentic (c. xiii.), and the manifest inference is that it also is spurious. polycarp, who is said by irenæus( ) to have been in his youth a disciple of the apostle john, became bishop of smyrna, and suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age.( ) on the authority of eusebius and jerome, it has hitherto been generally believed that his death took place in a.d. - . in the account of his martyrdom, which we possess in the shape of a letter from the church of smyrna, purporting to have been written by eye-witnesses, which must be pronounced spurious, polycarp is said to have died under the proconsul statius quadratus.( ) if this statement be correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained, for recent investigations have determined that statius quadratus was proconsul in a.d. - or - .( ) some critics, { } who affirm the authenticity of the epistle attributed to polycarp, date the epistle before a.d. ,( ) but the preponderance of opinion assigns it to a much later period.( ) doubts of its authenticity, and of the integrity of the text, were very early expressed,( ) and the close scrutiny to which later and more competent criticism has subjected it, has led very many to the conclusion that the epistle is either largely interpolated,( ) or altogether spurious.( ) the principal argument in favour { } of its authenticity is the fact that the epistle is mentioned by irenæus,( ) who in his extreme youth was acquainted with polycarp.( ) we have no very precise information regarding the age of irenæus, but jerome states that he flourished under commodus ( - ), and we may, as a favourable conjecture, suppose that he was then about - . in that case his birth must be dated about a.d. . there is reason to believe that he fell a victim to persecution under septimius severus, and it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the first outbreak in a.d. , or later. according to this calculation, the martyrdom of polycarp, in a.d. - , took place when he was ten or eleven years of age. even if a further concession be made in regard to his age, it is evident that the intercourse of irenæus with the bishop of smyrna must have been confined to his very earliest years,( ) a fact which is confirmed by the almost total absence of any record in his writings of the communications of polycarp. this certainly does not entitle irenæus to speak more authoritatively of an epistle ascribed to polycarp, than any one else of his day.( ) in the epistle itself, there are several anachronisms. in ch. ix. the blessed ignatius" is referred to as already dead, and he is held up with zosimus and rufus, and also with paul and the rest of the apostles, as examples of patience: men who have not run in vain, but are with the lord; but in ch. xiii. he is spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him, { } "and those who are with him."( ) yet, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already knows of his epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written by him "to us, and all the rest which we have by us."( ) the reference here, it will be observed, is not only to the epistles to the smyrnæans, and to polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles which are not included in the syriac version. dallseus( ) pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii. abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the epistle, and most critics, including those who assert the authenticity of the rest of the epistle, reject it at least, although many of these likewise repudiate ch. ix. as interpolated.( ) others, however, consider that the latter chapter is quite consistent with the later date, which, according to internal evidence, must be assigned to the epistle. the writer vehemently denounces,( ) as already widely spread, the gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist until the time of marcion, to whom and to whose followers he refers in unmistakable terms. an expression is used in ch. vii. in speaking of these heretics, which polycarp is reported by irenseus to have actually applied to marcion in person, during his visit to home. he is said to have called marcion the "first-born of satan," [--greek--]( ) and the same term { } is employed in this epistle with regard to every one who holds such false doctrines. the development of these heresies, therefore, implies a date for the composition of the epistle, at earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is further confirmed by other circumstances.( ) the writer of such a letter must have held a position in the church, to which polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life, when he was deputed to rome for the paschal discussion, and the epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical organization of a later time.( ) the earlier date which has now been adopted for the martyrdom of polycarp, by limiting the period during which it is possible that he himself could have written any portion of it, only renders the inauthenticity of the epistle more apparent. hilgenfeld has pointed out, as another indication of the same date, the injunction "pray for the kings" (orate pro regibus), which, in peter ii. , is "honour the king" [--greek--], which, he argues, accords with the period after antoninus pius had elevated marcus aurelius { } to joint sovereignty (a.d. ), or better still, with that in which marcus aurelius appointed lucius verus his colleague, a.d. , for to rulers outside of the roman empire there can be no reference. if authentic, however, the epistle must have been written, at latest, shortly after the martyrdom of ignatius in a.d. , but, as we have seen, there are strong internal characteristics excluding such a supposition. the reference to the martyr-journey of ignatius and to the epistles falsely ascribed to him, is alone sufficient to betray the spurious nature of the composition, and to class the epistle with the rest of the pseudo-ignatian literature. we shall now examine all the passages in this epistle which are pointed out as indicating any acquaintance with our synoptic gospels.( ) the first occurs in ch. ii., and we subjoin it in contrast with the nearest parallel passages of the gospels, but although we break it up into paragraphs, it will, of course, be understood that the quotation is continuous in the epistle. [---greek---] { } it will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of words of jesus occurs in the so-called epistle of clement to the corinthians, c. xiii., which we have already examined.( ) there, the passage is introduced by the same words, and in the midst of brief phrases which have parallels in our gospel there occurs in both epistles the same expression, "be pitiful that ye may be pitied," which is not found in any of our gospels. in order to find any parallels for the quotation, upon the hypothesis of a combination of texts, we have to add together portions of the following verses in the following order: matthew vii. , vi. (although, with complete linguistic variations, the sense of luke vi. is much closer), v. , vii. , v. , v. . such fragmentary compilation is in itself scarcely conceivable in an epistle of this kind, but when in the midst we find a passage foreign to our gospels, but which occurs in another work in connection with so similar a quotation, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is derived from tradition or from a gospel different from ours.( ) in no case can such { } a passage be considered material evidence of the existence of any one of our gospels. another expression which is pointed out occurs in ch. vii., "beseeching in our prayers the all-searching god not to lead us into temptation, as the lord said: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."( ) this is compared with the phrase in "the lord's prayer" (matthew vi. ), or the passage (xxvi. ): "watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."( ) the second gospel, however, equally has the phrase (xiv. ), and shows how unreasonable it is to limit these historical sayings to a single gospel. the next passage is of a similar nature (c. vi.): "if, therefore, we pray the lord that he may forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive."( ) the thought but not the language of this passage corresponds with matthew vi. -- , but equally so with luke xi. . now we must repeat that all such sayings of jesus were the common property of the early christians--were no doubt orally current amongst them, and still more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous gospels then in circulation, as they are by several of our own. in no case is there any written source indicated from which these passages are derived; they are simply quoted as words of jesus, and being all connected either with the "sermon on the mount" or the "lord's prayer," the two portions of the teaching of jesus which were most { } popular, widely known, and characteristic, there can be no doubt that they were familiar throughout the whole of the early church, and must have formed a part of most or all of the many collections of the words of the master. to limit them to our actual gospels, which alone survive, would be quite unwarrantable, and no reference to them, without specification of the source, can be received as evidence even of the existence of our synoptics. we may here briefly illustrate the point from the synoptics themselves. assuming the parable of the sower to be a genuine example of the teaching of jesus, as there is every reason to believe, it may with certainty be asserted that it must have been included in many of the records circulating among early christians, to which reference is made in the prologue to the third gospel. it would not be permissible to affirm that no part of that parable could be referred to by an early writer without that reference being an indication of acquaintance with our synoptic gospels. the parable is reported in closely similar words in each of those three gospels,( ) and it may have been, and probably was, recorded similarly in a dozen more. confining ourselves, however, for a moment to the three synoptics: what could a general allusion to the parable of the sower prove regarding their existence and use, no mention of a particular source being made? would it prove that all the three were extant, and that the writer knew them all, for each of them containing the parable would possess an equal claim to the reference? could it with any reason be affirmed that he was acquainted with matthew and not with mark? or with mark and not with matthew and luke? or with the third gospel and { } not with either of the other two? the case is the very same if we extend the illustration, and along with the synoptics include the numerous other records of the early church. the anonymous quotation of historical expressions of jesus cannot prove the existence of one special document among many to which we may choose to trace it. this is more especially to be insisted on from the fact, that hitherto we have not met with any mention of any one of our gospels, and have no right even to assume their existence from any evidence which has been furnished. chapter iii. justin martyr we shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of justin martyr, regarding the existence of our synoptic gospels at the middle of the second century, and we may remark, in anticipation, that whatever differences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of the problem which we have to examine, at least it is clear that the testimony of justin martyr is not of a nature to establish the date, authenticity, and character of gospels professing to communicate such momentous and astounding doctrines. the determination of the source from which justin derived his facts of christian history has for a century attracted more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any other similar question in connection with patristic literature, and upon none have more divergent opinions been expressed. justin, who suffered martyrdom about a.d. -- ,( ) under marcus aurelius, probably at the instigation of the cynical philosopher, crescens, was born in the greek-roman colony, flavia neapolis,( ) established during the { } reign of vespasian, near the ancient sichem in samaria. by descent he was a greek, and during the earlier part of his life a heathen, but after long and disappointed study of greek philosophy, he became a convert to christianity(l) strongly tinged with judaism. it is not necessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the writings which have come down to us bearing justin's name, many of which are undoubtedly spurious, for the two apologies and the dialogue with trypho, with which we have almost exclusively to do, are generally admitted to be genuine. it is true that there has been a singular controversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two apologies now extant, the following contradictory views having been maintained: that they are the two apologies mentioned by eusebius, and in their original order; that they are justin's two apologies, but that eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to marcus aurelius; that our second apology was the preface or appendix to the first, and that the original second is lost. the shorter apology contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry. there has been much controversy as to the date of the two apologies, and much difference of opinion still exists on the point. many critics assign the larger to about a.d. -- , and the shorter to a.d. -- .( ) a passage, however, occurs in the longer apology, which { } indicates that it must have been written about a century and a half after the commencement of the christian era, or, according to accurate reckoning, about a.d. . justin speaks, in one part of it, of perverted deductions being drawn from his teaching "that christ was born years ago under cyrenius."(l) those who contend for the earlier date have no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported assertion, that in this passage justin merely speaks "in round numbers," but many important circumstances confirm the date which justin thus gives us. in the superscription of the apology, antoninus is called "pius," a title which was first bestowed upon him in the year . moreover, justin directly refers to marcion, as a man "now living and teaching his disciples.... and who has by the aid of demons caused many of all nations to utter blasphemies," &c.( ) now the fact has been established that marcion did not come to rome, where justin himself was, until a.d. -- ,( ) when his prominent public career commenced, and it is apparent that the words of justin indicate a period when his doctrines had already { } become widely diffused. for these and many other strong reasons, which need not here be detailed, the majority of competent critics agree in more correctly assigning the first apology to about a.d. .( ) the dialogue with trypho, as internal evidence shows,( ) was written after the longer apology, and it is therefore generally dated some time within the first decade of the second half of the second century.( ) in these writings justin quotes very copiously from the old testament, and he also very frequently refers to facts of christian history and to sayings of jesus. of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in the first apology, and upwards of seventy in the dialogue with trypho, a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of which to identify the source from which he quotes. justin himself frequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations are derived from the "memoirs of the apostles" [--greek--], but except upon one occasion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates peter, he never mentions an author's name. upon examination it is found that, with only one or two brief exceptions, the { } numerous quotations from these memoirs differ more or less widely from parallel passages in our synoptic gospels, and in many cases differ in the same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of the second century, the writers of which are known to have made use of uncanonical gospels, and further, that these passages are quoted several times, at intervals, by justin with the same variations. moreover, sayings of jesus are quoted from these memoirs which are not found in our gospels at all, and facts in the life of jesus and circumstances of christian history derived from the same source, not only are not found in our gospels, but are in contradiction with them. these peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created much diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the "memoirs of the apostles." in the earlier days of new testament criticism more especially, many of course at once identified the memoirs with our gospels exclusively, and the variations were explained by conveniently elastic theories of free quotation from memory, imperfect and varying mss., combination, condensation and transposition of passages, with slight additions from tradition, or even from some other written source, and so on.( ) others endeavoured to explain { } away difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of our gospels,( ) or a harmony of the gospels, with passages added from some apocryphal work.( ) a much greater number of critics, however, adopt the conclusion that, along with our gospels, justin made use of one or more apocryphal gospels, and more especially of the gospel according to the hebrews, or according to peter, and also perhaps of tradition.( ) others assert that he made use of a special unknown gospel, or of the gospel according to the hebrews or according to peter, with a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our gospels to which, however, he did not attach much importance, preferring the apocryphal work;( ) whilst { } others have concluded that justin did not make use of our gospels at all, and that his quotations are either from the gospel according to the hebrews, or according to peter, or from some other special apocryphal gospel now no longer extant.( ) evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and laborious investigation of the identity of justin's memoirs of the apostles, cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity of our gospels, and in the absence of any specific mention of our synoptics any very elaborate examination of the memoirs might be considered unnecessary, more especially as it is admitted almost universally by competent critics, that justin did not himself consider the memoirs of the apostles inspired, or of any dogmatic authority, and had no idea of attributing canonical rank to them.( ) in pursuance of the system which we desire invariably to adopt of { } enabling every reader to form his own opinion, we shall as briefly as possible state the facts of the case, and furnish materials for a full comprehension of the subject. justin himself, as we have already stated, frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding christian history and his quotations are derived from the memoirs of the apostles [--greek--], to adopt the usual translation, although the word might more correctly be rendered "recollections," or "memorabilia." it has frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the [--greek--] of xenophon, but, as credner has pointed out, the similarity is purely accidental, and to constitute a parallel the title should have been "memoirs of jesus."( ) the word [--greek--] is here evidently used merely in the sense of records written from memory, and it is so employed by papias in the passage preserved by eusebius regarding mark, who, although he had not himself followed the lord, yet recorded his words from what he heard from peter, and who, having done so without order, is still defended for "thus writing some things as he remembered them" [--greek--].( ) in the same way irenseus refers to the "memoirs of a certain presbyter of apostolic times" [--greek--]( ) whose name he does not mention; and origen still more closely approximates to justin's use of the word when, expressing his theory regarding, the epistle to the hebrews, he says that the thoughts are the apostle's, but the phraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory { } what the apostle said [--greek--], and as of one writing at leisure the dictation of his master.( ) justin himself speaks of the authors of the memoirs as [--greek--],( ) and the expression was then and afterwards constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers.( ) this title, "memoirs of the apostles," however, although most appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of jesus, evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical gospels, but in fact excludes such an idea; and the whole of justin's views regarding holy scripture, prove that he saw in the memoirs merely records from memory to assist memory.( ) he does not call them [--greek--], but adheres always to the familiar name of [--greek--], and whilst his constant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment of oral tradition, there is nothing in the name of his records which can identify them with our gospels. justin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the "memoirs of the apostles,"( ) and five times he calls it simply the "memoirs."( ) he says, upon one occasion, that these memoirs were composed "by his apostles and their followers,"( ) but except in one place, { } to which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter fully examine, he never mentions the author's name, nor does he ever give any more precise information regarding their composition. it has been argued that, in saying that these memoirs were recorded by the apostles and their followers, justin intentionally and literally described the four canonical gospels, the first and fourth of which are ascribed to apostles, and the other two to mark and luke, the followers of apostles;( ) but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded. the language itself forbids this explanation, for justin does not speak indefinitely of memoirs of apostles and their followers, but of memoirs of the apostles, invariably using the article, which refers the memoirs to the collective body of the apostles.( ) moreover, the incorrectness of such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are stated by justin as derived from these memoirs, which do not exist in our gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to them. vast numbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the names of apostles and their followers, and claiming more or less direct apostolic authority, were in circulation in the early church: gospels according to peter,( ) to thomas,( ) to james,( ) to judas,( ) according to the { } apostles, or according to the twelve,( ) to barnabas,( ) to matthias,( ) to nicodemus,( ) &c., and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony to the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature.( ) the very names of most of such apocryphal gospels are lost, whilst of others we possess considerable information; but nothing is more certain than the fact, that there existed many works bearing names which render the attempt to interpret the title of justin's gospel as a description of the four in our canon quite unwarrantable. the words of justin evidently imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective recollections of the apostles, and those who followed them, regarding the life and teaching of jesus. the title: "memoirs of the apostles" by no means indicates a plurality of gospels.( ) a single passage has been pointed out, in which the memoirs are said to have been called [--greek--] in the plural: "for the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called { } gospels,"( ) &c. the last expression, a [--greek--], as many scholars have declared, is probably an interpolation. it is, in all likelihood, a gloss on the margin of some old ms. which some copyist afterwards inserted in the text.( ) if justin really stated that the memoirs were called gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself. in no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find trypho referring to the "so-called gospel," which he states that he has carefully read,( ) and which, of course, can only be justin's "memoirs;" and again, in another part of the same dialogue, justin quotes passages which are written "in the gospel"( ) [--greek--]. the term "gospel" is nowhere else used by justin in reference to a written record.( ) in no case, however, considering the numerous gospels then in circulation, and the fact that many of these, different from the canonical gospels, are known to have been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of justin, and by various communities of christians in that day, could such an expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical gospels.( ) { } describing the religious practices amongst christians, in another place, justin states that, at their assemblies on sundays, "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits."( ( this, however, by no means identifies the memoirs with the canonical gospels, for it is well known that many writings which have been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the churches, until very long after justin's day.( ) we have already met with several instances of this. eusebius mentions that the epistle of the roman clement was publicly read in churches in his time,( ) and he quotes an epistle of dionysius of corinth to soter, the bishop of rome, which states that fact for the purpose of "showing that it was the custom to read it in the churches, even from the earliest times."( ) dionysius likewise mentions the public reading of the epistle of soter to the corinthians. epiphanius refers to the reading in the churches of the epistle of clement,( ) and it continued to be so read in jerome's day.( ) in like manner, the "pastor" of hermas,( ) the "apocalypse of peter,"( ) and other works excluded from the canon were publicly read in the church in early days.( ) it is certain that gospels which { } did not permanently secure a place in the canon, such as the gospel according to the hebrews, the gospel according to peter, the gospel of the ebionites, and many kindred gospels, which in early times were exclusively used by various communities,( ) must have been read at their public assemblies. the public reading of justin's memoirs, therefore, does not prove anything, for this practice was by no means limited to the works now in our canon. the idea of attributing inspiration to the memoirs, or to any other work of the apostles, with the single exception, as we shall presently see, of the apocalypse of john,( ) which, as prophecy, entered within his limits, was quite foreign to justin, who recognized the old testament alone as the inspired word of god.( ) indeed, as we { } have already said, the very name "memoirs" in itself excludes the thought of inspiration,( ) which justin attributed only to prophetic writings; and he could not in any way regard as inspired the written tradition of the apostles and their followers, or a mere record of the words of jesus. on the contrary, he held the accounts of the apostles to be credible solely from their being authenticated by the old testament, and he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the memoirs because the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them.( ) according to justin, the old testament contained all that was necessary for salvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth, the memoirs, and even christ himself, being merely its interpreters.( ) he says that christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and taught by himself.( ) prophecy and the words of christ himself are alone of dogmatic value, all else is human teaching.( ) indeed, from a passage quoted with approval by irenæus, justin, in his lost work against marcion, said: "i would not have believed the lord himself, if he had proclaimed any other god than the creator;" that is to say, the god of the old testament.( ) { } that justin does not mention the name of the author of the memoirs would in any case render any argument as to their identity with our canonical gospels inconclusive; but the total omission to do so is the more remarkable from the circumstance that the names of old testament writers constantly occur in his writings. semisch counts quotations of the old testament, in which justin refers to the author by name, or to the book, and only in which he omits to do so,( ) and the latter number might be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and the inutility of repeating the reference.( ) when it is considered, therefore, that notwithstanding the extremely numerous quotations, and references to facts of christian history, all purporting to be derived from the "memoirs," he absolutely never, except in the one instance referred to, mentions an author's name, or specifies more clearly the nature of the source, the inference must not only be that he attached small importance to the memoirs, but also that he was actually ignorant of the author's name, and that his gospel had no more definite superscription. upon the theory that the memoirs of the apostles were simply our { } four canonical gospels, the singularity of the omission is increased by the diversity of contents and of authors, and the consequently greater necessity and probability that he should, upon certain occasions, distinguish between them. the fact is that the only writing of the new testament to which justin refers by name is, as we have already mentioned, the apocalypse, which he attributes to "a certain man whose name was john, one of the apostles of christ, who prophesied by a revelation made to him," &c.( ) the manner in which john is here mentioned, after the memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely referred to, clearly shows that justin did not possess any gospel also attributed to john. that he does name john, however, as author of the apocalypse and so frequently refers to old testament writers by name, yet never identifies the author of the memoirs, is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they were the canonical gospels.( ) it is perfectly clear, however, and this is a point of very great importance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views are agreed, that justin quotes from a _written_ source, and that oral tradition is excluded from his system.( ) he not only does not, like papias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms that in the memoirs is recorded "everything that concerns our "saviour jesus christ.,,( ) he constantly refers to them { } directly, as the source of his information regarding the history of jesus, and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from them. there is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that justin supplemented or modified the contents of the memoirs by oral tradition. it must, therefore, be remembered, in considering the nature of these memoirs, that the facts of christian history and the sayings of jesus are derived from a determinate written source, and are quoted as justin found them there.( ) those who attempt to explain the divergences of justin's quotations from the canonical gospels, which they still maintain to have been his memoirs, on the plea of oral tradition, defend the identity at the expense of the authority of the gospels. for nothing could more forcibly show justin's disregard and disrespect for the gospels, than would the fact that, possessing them, he not only never names their authors, but considers himself at liberty continually to contradict, modify, and revise their statements. as we have already remarked, when we examine the contents of the memoirs of the apostles, through justin's numerous quotations, we find that many parts of the gospel narratives are apparently quite unknown, whilst, on the other hand, we meet with facts of evangelical history, which are foreign to the canonical gospels, and others which are contradictory of gospel statements. justin's quotations, almost without exception, vary more or less from the parallels in the canonical text, and often these variations are consistently repeated by himself, and are found in other works about his time. moreover, justin quotes expressions of jesus, which are not found in our gospels at all. the omissions, though often very { } singular, supposing the canonical gospels before him, and almost inexplicable when it is considered how important they would often have been to his argument, need not, as merely negative evidence, be dwelt on here, but we shall briefly illustrate the other peculiarities of justin's quotations. the only genealogy of jesus which is recognized by justin is traced through the virgin mary. she it is who is descended from abraham, isaac, and jacob, and from the house of david, and joseph is completely set aside.( ) jesus "was born of a virgin of the lineage of abraham and tribe of judah and of david, christ the son of god."( ) "jesus christ the son of god has been born without sin of a virgin sprung from the lineage of abraham."( ) "for of the virgin of the seed of jacob, who was the father of judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the jews, by the power of god was he conceived; and jesse was his forefather according to the prophecy, and he (jesus) was the son of jacob and judah according to successive descent."( ) the genealogy of jesus in the canonical gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely through joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of david.( ) the genealogies of matthew and luke, though differing in several important points, at least agree in excluding mary. that of the third gospel commences with joseph, { } and that of the first ends with him: "and jacob begat joseph, the husband of mary, of whom was born jesus, who is called christ."( ) the angel who warns joseph not to put away his wife, addresses him as "joseph, thou son of david,"( ) and the angel gabriel, who, according to the third gospel, announces to mary the supernatural conception, is sent "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was joseph, of the house of david."( ) so persistent, however, is justin in ignoring this davidic descent through joseph, that not only does he at least eleven times trace it through mary, but his gospel materially differs from the canonical, where the descent of joseph from david is mentioned by the latter. in the third gospel, joseph goes to judaea "unto the city of david, which is called bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of david."( ) justin, however, simply states that he went "to bethlehem... for his descent was from the tribe of judah, which inhabited that region."( ) there can be no doubt that justin not only did not derive his genealogies from the canonical gospels, but that on the contrary the memoirs, from which he did learn the davidic descent through mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.( ) many traces still exist to show that the view of justin's memoirs of the apostles of the davidic descent of jesus through mary instead of through joseph, as the canonical gospels represent it, was anciently held in the church. apocryphal gospels of early date, based without doubt upon more ancient evangelical works, are still extant, in which the genealogy of jesus is traced, as in { } justin's memoirs, through mary. one of these is the gospel of james, commonly called the _protevangelium_, a work referred to by ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries,( ) and which tischendorf even ascribes to the first three decades of the second century,( ) in which mary is stated to be of the lineage of david.( ) she is also described as of the royal race and family of david in the gospel of the nativity of mary,( ) and in the gospel of pseudo-matthew her davidic descent is prominently mentioned.( ) there can be no doubt that all of these works are based upon earlier originals,( ) and there is no reason why they may not have been drawn from the same source from which justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction to the synoptics.( ) in the narrative of the events which preceded the { } birth of jesus, the first gospel describes the angel as appearing only to joseph and explaining the supernatural conception,( ) and the author seems to know nothing of any announcement to mary.( ) the third gospel, on the contrary, does not mention any such angelic appearance to joseph, but represents the angel as announcing the conception to mary herself alone.( ) justin's memoirs know of the appearances both to joseph and to mary, but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ materially from those of both gospels.( ) in this place, only one point, however, can be noticed. justin describes the angel as saying to mary: "'behold, thou shalt conceive of the holy ghost, and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the son of the highest, and thou shalt call his name jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,' as they taught who recorded everything that concerns our saviour jesus christ."( ) now this is a clear and direct quotation, but besides distinctly differing in form from our gospels, it presents the important peculiarity that the words, "for he shall save his people from { } their sins," are not, in luke, addressed to mary at all, but that they occur in the first gospel in the address of the angel to joseph.( ) these words, however, are not accidentally inserted in this place, for we find that they are joined in the same manner to the address of the angel to mary in the protevangelium of james: "for the power of the lord will overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which is born of thee shall be called the son of the highest, and thou shalt call his name jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."( ) tischendorf states his own opinion that this passage is a recollection of the protevangelium unconsciously added by justin to the account in luke,( ) but the arbitrary nature of the limitation "unconsciously" (ohne dass er sich dessen bewusst war) here is evident. there is a point in connection with this which merits a moment's attention. in the text of the protevangelium, edited by tischendorf, the angel commences his address to mary by saying: "fear not, mary, for thou hast found favour before the lord, and thou shalt conceive of his word" [--greek--].( ) now justin, after quoting the passage above, continues to argue that the spirit and the power of god must not be misunderstood to mean anything else than the word, who is also the first born of god as the prophet moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused { } her to conceive.( ) the occurrence of the singular expression in the protovangelium and the similar explanation of justin immediately accompanying a variation from our gospels, which is equally shared by the apocryphal work, strengthens the suspicion of a similarity of origin. justin's divergences from the protevangelium prevent our supposing that, in its present state, it could have been the actual source of his quotations, but the wide differences which exist between the extant mss. of the protevangelium show that even the most ancient does not present it in its original form. it is much more probable that justin had before him a still older work, to which both the protevangelium and the third gospel were indebted.( ) justin's account of the removal of joseph to bethlehem is peculiar, and evidently is derived from a distinct un-canonical source. it may be well to present his account and that of luke side by side: { } attention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in which the davidic descent of jesus is traced by justin through mary, and to the suppression in this passage of all that might seem to indicate a claim of descent through joseph. as the continuation of a peculiar representation of the history of the infancy of jesus, differing materially from that of the synoptics, it is impossible to regard this, with its remarkable variations, as an arbitrary correction by justin of the canonical text, and we must hold it to be derived from a different source, perhaps, indeed, one of those from which luke's gospel itself first drew the elements of the narrative, and this persuasion increases as further variations in the earlier history, presently to be considered, are taken into account. it is not necessary to enter into the question of the correctness of the date of this census, but it is evident that justin's memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the canonical narrative. the limitation of the census to judæa, instead of extending it to the whole roman empire; the designation of cyrenius as [--greek--] of judaea instead of [--greek--] of syria; and the careful suppression of the davidic element in connection with joseph indicate a peculiar written source different from the synoptics.( ) had justin departed from the account in luke with the view of correcting inaccurate statements, the matter might have seemed more consistent with the use of the third gospel, although at the same time it might have evinced but little reverence for it as a canonical { } work. on the contrary, however, the statements of justin are still more inconsistent with history than those in luke, inasmuch as, so far from being the first procurator of judsea, as justin's narrative states in opposition to the third gospel, cyrenius never held that office, but was really, later, the imperial proconsul over syria, and as such, when judaea became a roman province after the banishment of archelaus, had the power to enrol the inhabitants, and instituted coponius as first procurator of judaea. justin's statement involves the position that at one and the same time herod was the king, and cyrenius the roman procurator of judsea.( ) in the same spirit, and departing from the usual narrative of the synoptics, which couples the birth of jesus with "the days of herod the king," justin in another place states that christ was born "under cyrenius."( ) justin evidently adopts without criticism a narrative which he found in his memoirs, and does not merely correct and remodel a passage of the third gospel, but, on the contrary, seems altogether ignorant of it.( ) the genealogies of jesus in the first and third gospels differ irreconcileably from each other. justin differs from both. in this passage another discrepancy arises. while luke seems to represent nazareth as the dwelling-place of joseph and mary, and bethlehem as the city to which they went solely on account of the census,( ) { } matthew, who seems to know nothing of the census, makes bethlehem, on the contrary, the place of residence of joseph,( ) and on coming back from egypt, with the evident intention of returning to bethlehem, joseph is warned by a dream to turn aside into galilee, and he goes and dwells, apparently for the first time, "in a city called nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: he shall be called a nazarene."( ) justin, however, goes still further than the third gospel in his departure from the data of matthew, and where luke merely infers, justin distinctly asserts nazareth to have been the dwelling-place of joseph [--greek--], and bethlehem, in contradistinction, the place from which he derived his origin [--greek--]. the same view is to be found in several apocryphal gospels still extant. in the protevangelium of james again, we find joseph journeying to bethlehem with mary before the birth of jesus.( ) the census here is ordered by augustus, who commands: "that all who were in bethlehem _of judeæ_, should be enrolled."( ) a limitation worthy of notice in comparison with that of justin. in like manner the gospel of the nativity. this gospel represents the parents of mary as living in nazareth, in { } which place she was born,( ) and it is here that the angel gabriel announces to her the supernatural conception.( ) joseph goes to bethlehem to set his house in order and prepare what is necessary for the marriage, but then returns to nazareth, where he remains with mary until her time was nearly accomplished,( ) "when joseph having taken his wife with whatever else was necessary went to the city of bethlehem, whence he was."( ) the phrase "_unde ipse erat_" recalls the [--greek--] of justin.( ) as we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of jesus, we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical gospels for which the preceding have prepared us, and which indicate that justin's memorials certainly differed from them: { } at least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of jesus,--not taking place in bethlehem itself but in a cave [--greek--] near the village, because joseph could not find a lodging there,--are not derived from our gospels, and here even scmisch( ) is forced to abandon his theory that justin's variations arise merely from imperfectly quoting from memory, and to conjecture that he must have adopted tradition. it has, however, been shown that justin himself distinctly excludes tradition, and in this case, moreover, there are many special reasons for believing that he quotes from a written source. ewald rightly points out that here, and in other passages where, in common with ancient ecclesiastical writers, justin departs from our gospels, the variation can in no way be referred to oral tradition;( ) and, moreover, that when justin proves( ) from isaiah xxxiii. , that christ _must_ be born in a cave, he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the cave in his written gospel.( ) the whole argument of justin excludes the idea that he could avail himself of mere tradition. he maintains that everything which the prophets had foretold of christ had actually been fulfilled, and he perpetually refers to the memoirs and other written documents for the verification of his assertions. he either refers to the prophets for the confirmation of the memoirs, or shows in the { } memoirs the narrative of facts which are the accomplishment of prophecies, but in both cases it is manifest that there must have been a record of the facts which he mentions. there can be no doubt that the circumstances we have just quoted, and which are not found in the canonical gospels, must have been narrated in justin's memoirs. we find, again, the same variations as in justin in several extant apocryphal gospels. the protevangelium of james represents the birth of jesus as taking place in a cave;( ) so also the arabic gospel of the infancy,( ) and several others.( ) this uncanonical detail is also mentioned by several of the fathers, origen and eusebius both stating that the cave and the manger were still shown in their day.( ) teschendorf does not hesitate to affirm that justin derived this circumstance from the protevangelium.( ) justin, however, does not distinguish such a source; and the mere fact that we have a form of that gospel, in which it occurs, still extant, by no means justifies such a specific conclusion, when so many other works, now lost, may equally have contained { } it. if the fact be derived from the protevangelium, that work, or whatever other apocryphal gospel may have supplied it, must be admitted to have at least formed part of the memoirs of the apostles, and with that necessary admission ends all special identification of the memoirs with our canonical gospels. much more probably, however, justin quotes from the more ancient source from which the protevangelium and, perhaps, luke drew their narrative.( ) there can be very little doubt that the gospel according to the hebrews contained an account of the birth in bethlehem, and as it is, at least, certain that justin quotes other particulars known to have been in it, there is fair reason to suppose that he likewise found this fact in that work.( ) in any case it is indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our canonical gospels.( ) justin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the shepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, narrated in the third gospel.( ) to the cave in which the infant jesus is born came the magi, but instead of employing the phrase used by the first gospel, "magi from the east,"( ) [--greek--] justin always describes them as "magi from arabia," [--greek--]. justin is so punctilious that he { } never speaks of these magi without adding "from arabia," except twice, where, however, he immediately mentions arabia as the point of the argument for which they are introduced; and in the same chapter in which this occurs he four times calls them directly magi from arabia.( ) he uses this expression not less than nine times.( ) that he had no objection to the term "the east," and that with a different context it was common to his vocabulary, is proved by his use of it elsewhere.( ) it is impossible to resist the conviction that justin's memoirs contained the phrase "magi from arabia," which is foreign to our gospels.( ) again, according to justin, the magi see the star "in heaven" [--greek--],( ) and not "in the east" [--greek--] as the first gospel has it:( ) "when a star rose in heaven [--greek--] at the time of his birth as is recorded in the memoirs of the apostle."( ) he apparently knows nothing of the star guiding them to the place where the young child was.( ) herod, moreover, questions the elders [--greek--]( ) as to the place where the christ should be born, and not the "chief priests and scribes of the people" [--greek--].( ) these divergences, taken in connection with those which are interwoven with the whole narrative of the birth, can only proceed from the fact that justin quotes from a source different from ours.( ) justin relates that when jesus came to jordan he was { } believed to be the son of joseph the carpenter, and he appeared without comeliness, as the scriptures announced; "and being considered a carpenter,--for, when he was amongst men, he made carpenter's works, ploughs and yokes [--greek--]; by these both teaching the symbols of righteousness and an active life."( ) these details are foreign to the canonical gospels. mark has the expression: "is not this the carpenter, the son of mary? "( ) but luke omits it altogether.( ) the idea that the son of god should do carpenter's work on earth was very displeasing to many christians, and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are evident in mark. apparently the copy which origen used had omitted even the modified phrase, for he declares that jesus himself is nowhere called a carpenter in the gospels current in the church.( ) a few mss. still extant are without it, although it is found in all the more ancient codices. traces of these details are found in several apocryphal works, especially in the gospel of thomas, where it is said: "now his father was a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and yokes" [--greek--]( ), an account which, from the similarity of language, was in all { } probability derived from the same source as that of justin. the explanation which justin adds: "by which he taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life," seems to indicate that he refers to a written narrative containing the detail, already, perhaps, falling into sufficient disfavour to require the aid of symbolical interpretation. in the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities which prove that justin did not derive it from our gospels. thrice he speaks of john sitting by the river jordan: "he cried as he sat by the river jordan;"( ( "while he still sat by the river jordan;"( ) and "for when john sat by the jordan."( ) this peculiar expression so frequently repeated must have been derived from a written gospel.( ) then justin, in proving that jesus predicted his second coming and the re-appearance of elijah, states: "and therefore our lord in his teaching announced that this should take place, saying elias also should come" [--greek--]. a little lower down he again expressly quotes the words of jesus: "for which reason our christ declared on earth to those who asserted that elias must come before christ: elias, indeed, shall come," &c. [--greek--].( ) matthew, however, reads: "elias indeed cometh," [--greek--].( ) now there is no version in which [--greek--] is substituted for [--greek--] as justin does, but, as credner has pointed out,( ) the whole weight of justin's argument lies in the use of the future tense. as there are so many other variations { } in justin's context, this likewise appears to be derived from a source different from our gospels.( ) when jesus goes to be baptized by john many-striking peculiarities occur in justin's narrative: "as jesus went down to the water, a fire also was kindled in the jordan; and when he came up from the water, the holy spirit like a dove fell upon him, as the apostles of this very christ of ours wrote... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens... thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee."( ) the incident of the fire in jordan is of course quite foreign to our gospels, and further the words spoken by the heavenly voice differ from those reported by them, for instead of the passage from psalm ii. , the gospels have: "thou art my beloved son; in thee i am well pleased."( ) justin repeats his version a second time in the same chapter, and again elsewhere he says regarding the temptation: "for this devil also at the time when he (jesus) went up from the river jordan, when the voice declared to him: 'thou art my son; this day have i begotten thee,' it is written in the memoirs of the apostles, came to him and tempted him," &c.( ) in both of these passages, it will be perceived that justin directly refers to the memoirs of the apostles as the source of his statements. some have argued that { } justin only appeals to them for the fact of the descent of the holy ghost, and not for the rest of the narrative.( ) it has of course been felt that, if it can be shown that justin quotes from the memoirs words and circumstances which are not to be found in our canonical gospels, the identity of the two can no longer be maintained. it is, however, in the highest degree arbitrary to affirm that justin intends to limit his appeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence. to quote authority for one assertion and to leave another in the same sentence, closely connected with it and part indeed of the very same narrative, not only unsupported, but indeed weakened by direct exclusion, would indeed be singular, for justin affirms with equal directness and confidence the fact of the fire in jordan, the descent of the holy ghost, and the words spoken by the heavenly voice. if in the strictest grammatical accuracy there may be no absolute necessity to include in that which the apostles wrote more than the phrase immediately preceding, there is not, on the other hand, anything which requires or warrants the exclusion of the former part of the sentence. the matter must therefore be decided according to fair inference and reasonable probability, and not to suit any foregone conclusion, and these as well as all the evidence concerning justin's use of the memoirs irresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole passage is derived from one source. in the second extract given above, it is perfectly clear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice, which justin again quotes, and which are not in our gospels, were recorded in the memoirs, for justin could { } not have referred to them for an account of the temptation at the time when jesus went up from jordan and the voice said to him: "thou art my son; this day have i begotten thee," if these facts and words were not recorded in them at all.( ) it is impossible to doubt, after impartial consideration, that the incident of the fire in jordan, the words spoken by the voice from heaven, and the temptation were taken from the same source: they must collectively be referred to the memoirs.( ) of one thing we may be sure: had justin known the form of words used by the voice from heaven according to our gospels, he would certainly have made use of it in preference to that which he actually found in his memoirs. he is arguing that christ is preexisting god, become incarnate by god's will through the virgin mary, and trypho demands how he can be demonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is said to be filled with the power of the holy ghost, as though he had required this, justin replies that these powers of the spirit have come upon him not because he had need of them, but because they would accomplish scripture, which declared that after him there should be no prophet.( ) the proof of this, he continues, is that, as soon as the child was born, the magi from arabia came to worship him, because even at his birth he was in possession of his power,( ) and after he had grown up like other men by the use of suitable means, he came to { } the river jordan where john was baptizing, and as he went into the water a fire was kindled in the jordan, and the holy ghost descended like a dove. he did not go to the river because he had any need of baptism or of the descent of the spirit, but because of the human race which had fallen under the power of death. now if, instead of the passage actually cited, justin could have quoted the words addressed to jesus by the voice from heaven according to the gospels: "thou art my beloved son; in thee i am well pleased," his argument would have been greatly strengthened by such direct recognition of an already existing, and, as he affirmed, pre-existent divinity in jesus. not having these words in his memoirs of the apostles, however, he was obliged to be content with those which he found there: "thou art my son; this day have i begotten thee;"--words which, in fact, in themselves destroyed the argument for pre-existence, and dated the divine begetting of jesus as the son of god that very day. the passage, indeed, supported those who actually asserted that the holy ghost first entered into jesus at his baptism. these considerations, and the repeated quotation of the same words in the same form, make it clear that justin quotes from a source different from our gospel.( ) in the scanty fragments of the "gospel according to the hebrews" which have been preserved, we find both the incident of the fire kindled in jordan and the words { } of the heavenly voice as quoted by justin. "and as he went up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of god in the form of a dove which came down and entered into him. and a voice came from heaven saying: 'thou art my beloved son; in thee i am well pleased;' and again: 'this day have i begotten thee.' and immediately a great light shone round about the place."( ) epiphanius extracts this passage from the version in use amongst the ebionites, but it is well known that there were many other varying forms of the same gospel; and hilgenfeld,( ) with all probability, conjectures that the version known to epiphanius was no longer in the same purity as that used by justin, but represents the transition stage to the canonical gospels,--adopting the words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the older form. jerome gives another form of the words from the version in use amongst the nazarenes: "factum est autem cum ascendisset dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis spiritus sancti et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: fili mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te ut venires et requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primo-genitus qui regnas in sempiternum."( ) this supports justin's reading. regarding the gospel according to the hebrews more must be said hereafter, but when it is remembered that justin, a native of samaria, probably first knew christianity through believers in syria to whose jewish view of christianity he all his { } life adhered, and that these christians almost exclusively used this gospel( ) under various forms and names, it is reasonable to suppose that he also like them knew and made use of it, a supposition increased almost to certainty when it is found that justin quotes words and facts foreign to the canonical gospels which are known to have been contained in it. the argument of justin that jesus did not need baptism may also be compared to another passage of the gospel according to the hebrews preserved by jerome, and which preceded the circumstances narrated above, in which the mother and brethren of jesus say to him that john the baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins, and propose that they should go to be baptized by him. jesus replies, "in what way have i sinned that i should go and be baptized by him?"( ) the most competent critics agree that justin derived the incidents of the fire in jordan and the words spoken by the heavenly voice from the gospel according to the hebrews or some kindred work,( ) and there is every probability that the numerous other quotations in his works differing from our gospels are taken from the same source. the incident of the fire in jordan likewise occurs in the ancient work "prædicatio pauli,"( ) coupled with a { } context which forcibly recalls the passage of the gospel according to the hebrews, which has just been quoted, and apparent allusions to it are found in the sibylline books and early christian literature.( ) credner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or lights at baptism by the church, during early times, probably rose out of this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in jordan at the baptism of jesus.( ) the peculiar form of words used by the heavenly voice according to justin and to the gospel according to the hebrews was also known to several of the fathers.( ) augustine mentions that some mss. in his time contained that reading in luke iii. , although without the confirmation of more ancient greek codices.( ) it is still extant in the codex bezæ (d). the itala version adds to matthew iii. : "and when he was baptized a great light shone round from the water, so that all who had come were afraid" (et cum baptizaretur, lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant); and again at luke iii. it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing at least in sense with those which justin found in his memoirs of the apostles. { } these circumstances point with certainty to an earlier original corresponding with justin, in all probability the gospel according to the hebrews, and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the passage from the gospels finally adopted by the church for dogmatic reasons, as various sects based on the words doctrines which were at variance with the ever-enlarging belief of the majority.( ) then justin states that the men of his time asserted that the miracles of jesus were performed by magical art [--greek--], "for they ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people."( ) this cannot be accepted as a mere version of the charge that jesus cast out demons by beelzebub, but must have been found by justin in his memoirs.( ) in the gospel of nicodemus or acta pilati, the jews accuse jesus before pilate of being a magician,( ) coupled with the assertion that he casts out demons through beelzebub the prince of the demons; and again they simply say: "did we not tell thee that he is a magician?"( ) we shall presently see that justin actually refers to certain acts of pontius pilate in justification of other assertions regarding the trial of jesus.( ) in the clementine recognitions, moreover, the same charge is made by one of the scribes, who says that jesus did not perform his miracles as a prophet, but as a magician.( ) { } oelsus makes a similar charge,( ) and lactantius refers to such an opinion as prevalent among the jews at the time of jesus,( ) which we find confirmed by many passages in talmudic literature.( ) there was indeed a book called "magia jesu christi," of which jesus himself, it was pretended, was the author.( ) in speaking of the trial of jesus, justin says: "for also as the prophet saith, they reviled him and set him on the judgment seat and said: judge for us,"( ) a peculiarity which is not found in the canonical gospels. justin had just quoted the words of isaiah (lxv. , lviii. )... "they now ask of me judgment and dare to draw nigh to god," and then he cites psalm xxii. , : "they pierced my hands and my feet, and upon my vesture they cast lots." he says that this did not happen to david, but was fulfilled in christ, and the expression regarding the piercing the hands and feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven through his hands and feet. and after he was crucified they cast lots upon his vesture. "and that these things occurred," he continues, "you may learn from the acts drawn up under pontius pilate."( ) he likewise upon another occasion refers to the same acta for confirmation of statements.( ) the gospel of nicodemus or gesta { } pilati, now extant, does not contain the circumstance to which we are now referring, but in contradiction to the statement in the fourth gospel (xviii. , ) the jews in this apocryphal work freely go into the very judgment seat of pilate.( ) teschendorf maintains that the first part of the gospel of nicodemus, or acta pilati, still extant, is the work, with more or less of interpolation, which, existing in the second century, is referred to by justin.( ) a few reasons may here be given against such a conclusion. the fact of jesus being set upon the judgment seat is not contained in the extant acta pilati at all, and therefore this work does not correspond with justin's statement. it seems most unreasonable to suppose that justin should seriously refer roman emperors to a work of this description, so manifestly composed by a christian, and the acta to which he directs them must have been a presumed official document, to which they had access, as of course no other evidence could be of any weight with them.( ) the extant work neither pretends to be, nor has in the slightest degree the form of, an official report. moreover, the prologue attached to it distinctly states that ananias, a provincial warden in the reign of flavius theodosius (towards the middle of the fifth century), found these acts written in hebrew by nicodemus, and that he translated them into greek.( ) the work itself, therefore, only pretends to be a private composition in hebrew, and does not claim any relation to pontius pilate. the greek is very corrupt and { } degraded, and considerations of style alone would assign it to the fifth century, as would still more imperatively the anachronisms with which it abounds. tischendorf considers that tertullian refers to the same work as justin, but it is evident that he infers an official report, for he says distinctly, after narrating the circumstances of the crucifixion and resurrection: "all these facts regarding christ, pilate.... reported to the reigning emperor tiberius."( ) it is extremely probable that in saying this tertullian merely extended the statement of justin. he nowhere states that he himself had seen this report, nor does justin, and as is the case with the latter, some of the facts which tertullian supposes to be reported by pilate are not contained in the apocryphal work.( ) there are still extant some apocryphal writings in the form of official reports made by pilate of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of jesus,( ) but none are of very ancient date. it is certain that, on the supposition that pilate may have made an official report of events so important in their estimation, christian writers; with greater zeal than conscience, composed fictitious reports in his name, in the supposed interest of their religion, and there was in that day little or no critical sense to detect and discredit such forgeries. there is absolutely no evidence to show that justin was acquainted with any official report of pilate to the roman emperor, nor indeed is it easy to understand how he could possibly have been, even if such a document existed, and it is most probable, as { } scholten conjectures, that justin merely referred to documents which tradition supposed to have been written, but of which he himself had no personal knowledge.( ) be this as it may, as he considered the incident of the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy, there can be little or no doubt that it was narrated in the memoirs which contained "everything relating to jesus christ," and finding it there he all the more naturally assumed that it must have been mentioned in any official report. in narrating the agony in the garden, there are further variations. justin says: "and the passage: 'all my bones are poured out and dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax melting in the midst of my belly,' was a prediction of that which occurred to him that night when they came out against him to the mount of olives to seize him. for in the memoirs composed, i say, by his apostles and their followers, it is recorded that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed, saying: 'if possible, let this cup pass.'"( ) it will be observed that this is a direct quotation from the memoirs, but there is a material difference from our gospels. luke is the only gospel which mentions the bloody sweat, and there the account reads (xxii. ), "as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground." [--greek--] [--greek--] in addition to the other linguistic differences justin omits the emphatic [--greek--] which gives the whole point to luke's account, and which evidently could not have been in the text of the memoirs. semisch argues that [--greek--] alone, especially in medical phraseology, meant { } "drops of blood," without the addition of [--greek--];(l) but the author of the third gospel did not think so, and undeniably makes use of both, and justin does not. moreover, luke introduces the expression [--greek--] to show the intensity of the agony, whereas justin evidently did not mean to express "drops of blood" at all, his intention in referring to the sweat being to show that the prophecy: "all my bones are poured out, &c, like water," had been fulfilled, with which the reading in his memoirs more closely corresponded. the prayer also so directly quoted decidedly varies from luke xxii. , which reads: "father, if thou be willing to remove this cup from me ": [--greek--] [--greek--] in matthew xxvi. this part of the prayer is more like the reading of justin: "father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me "--[--greek--] but that gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony, which excludes it from consideration. in another place justin also quotes the prayer in the garden as follows: "he prayed, saying: 'father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;' and besides this, praying, he said: 'not as i wish, but as thou willest.'"( ) the first phrase in this place, apart from some transposition of words, agrees with matthew; but even if this reading be preferred of the two, the absence of the incident of the sweat of agony from the first gospel renders it impossible to regard it as the source; and, further, the second part of the prayer which is here { } given differs materially both from the first and third gospels. [--greek--] the two parts of this prayer, moreover, seem to have been separate in the memoirs, for not only does justin not quote the latter portion at all in dial. , but here he markedly divides it from the former. justin knows nothing of the episode of the angel who strengthens jesus, which is related in luke xxii. . there is, however, a still more important point to mention: that although verses , with the incidents of the angel and the bloody sweat are certainly in a great number of mss., they are omitted by some of the oldest codices, as for instance by the alexandrian and vatican mss.( ) it is evident that in this part justin's memoirs differed from our first and third gospels much in the same way that they do from each other. in the same chapter justin states that when the jews went out to the mount of olives to take jesus, "there was not even a single man to run to his help as a guiltless person."( ) this is in direct contradiction to all the gospels,( ) and justin not only completely ignores the episode of the ear of malchus, but in this passage in the sinaitic codex they are marked for omission by a later hand. lachmann brackets, and drs. westcott and hort double-bracket them. the ms. evidence may bo found in detail in scrivener's int. to crit. n. t. nd ed. p. , stated in the way which is most favourable for the authenticity. { } excludes it, and his gospel could not have contained it.( ) luke is specially marked in generalizing the resistance of those about jesus to his capture: "when they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him: lord, shall we smite with the sword? and a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear."( ) as this episode follows immediately after the incident of the bloody sweat and prayer in the garden, and the statement of justin occurs in the very same chapter in which he refers to them, this contradiction further tends to confirm the conclusion that justin employed a different gospel. it is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that justin states that, "after he (jesus) was crucified, all his friends (the apostles) stood aloof from him, having denied him( ).... (who, after he rose from the dead, and after they were convinced by himself that before his passion he had told them that he must suffer these things, and that they were foretold by the prophets, repented of their flight from him when he was crucified), and while remaining among them he sang praises to god, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles."( ) justin, therefore, repeatedly asserts that _after_ the crucifixion all the apostles forsook him, and he extends the denial of peter { } to the whole of the twelve. it is impossible to consider this distinct and reiterated affirmation a mere extension of the passage: "they all forsook him and fled "[--greek--],( ) when jesus was arrested, which proceeded mainly from momentary fear.( ) justin seems to indicate that the disciples withdrew from and denied jesus when they saw him crucified, from doubts which consequently arose as to his messianic character. now, on the contrary, the canonical gospels represent the disciples as being together after the crucifixion.( ) justin does not exhibit any knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the sepulchre as to christ's having foretold all that had happened,( ) but makes this proceed from jesus himself. indeed, he makes no mention of these angels at all. there are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples were offended after the crucifixion.( ) hilgenfeld points out the appearance of special petrine tendency in this passage, in the fact that it is not peter alone, but all the apostles, who are said to deny their master; and he suggests that an indication of the source from which justin quoted may be obtained from the kindred quotation in the epistle to the smyrnæans (iii.) by pseudo-ignatius: "for i know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and i believe that he is so now. and when he came to those that were with peter, he said to them: lay hold, handle me, and see that i am { } not an incorporeal spirit. and immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." jerome, it will be remembered, found this in the gospel according to the hebrews used by the nazarenes, which he translated,( ) from which we have seen that justin in all probability derived other particulars differing from the canonical gospels, and with which we shall constantly meet, in a similar way, in examining justin's quotations. origen also found it in a work called the "doctrine of peter" [--greek--],( ) which must have been akin to the "preaching of peter" [--greek--].( ) hilgenfeld suggests that, in the absence of more certain information, there is no more probable source from which justin may have derived his statement than the gospel according to peter, or the gospel according to the hebrews, which is known to have contained so much in the same spirit.( ) it may well be expected that, at least in touching such serious matters as the crucifixion and last words of jesus, justin must adhere with care to authentic records, and not fall into the faults of loose quotation from memory, free handling of texts, and careless omissions and additions, by which those who maintain the identity of the memoirs with the canonical gospels seek to explain the systematic variations of justin's quotations from the text of the latter. it will, however, be found that here also marked discrepancies occur. justin says, after referring to numerous prophecies regarding the treatment of christ: "and again, when he says: 'they spake with their lips, they wagged the head, saying: let him { } deliver himself.' that all these things happened to the christ from the jews, you can ascertain. for when he was being crucified they shot out the lips, and wagged their heads, saying: 'let him who raised the dead deliver himself.'"( ) and in another place, referring to the same psalm (xxii.) as a prediction of what was to happen to jesus, justin says: "for they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of them, and distorted [--greek--] their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the memoirs of his apostles: he declared himself the son of god; (let him) come down, let him walk about; let god save him."( ) in both of these passages justin directly appeals to written authority. the [--greek--] may leave the source of the first uncertain,( ) but the second is distinctly stated to contain the actual words "written in the memoirs of his apostles," and it seems reasonable to suppose that the former passage is also derived from them. it is scarcely necessary to add that both differ very materially from the canonical gospels.( ) the taunt canon westcott admits that in the latter passage justin does profess to give the exact words which were recorded in the memoirs, and that they are not to be found in our gospels; "but," he apologetically adds, "we do find these others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference"! this is a specimen of apologetic criticism. dr. westcott goes on to say that as no ms. or father known to him has preserved any reading more closely resembling justin's, "if it appear not to be deducible from our gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source) must remain concealed." on the canon, p. f. cf. matt, xxvii. -- ; mark xv. -- ; luke xxiii. -- . { } contained in the first of these passages is altogether peculiar to justin: "let him who raised the dead deliver himself" [--greek--];( ) and even if justin did not himself indicate a written source, it would not be reasonable to suppose that he should himself for the first time record words to which he refers as the fulfilment of prophecy.( ) it would be still more ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty presented by such a variation by attributing the words to tradition, at the same time that it is asserted that justin's memoirs were actually identical with the gospels. no aberration of memory could account for such a variation, and it is impossible that justin should prefer tradition regarding a form of words, so liable to error and alteration, with written gospels within his reach. besides, to argue that justin affirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained [--greek--], whilst the words which he states to have been spoken were not actually recorded, would be against all reason. the second of the mocking speeches ( ) of the lookers-on is referred distinctly to the memoirs of the apostles, but is also, with the accompanying description, foreign the nearest parallel in our gospels is in luke xxiii. . "he saved others, let him save himself if this man be the christ of god, his chosen." [--greek--] semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same sentence, and that there is consequently a contradiction in the very quotations themselves; but there can be no doubt whatever that the two phrases are distinct parts of the mockery, and the very same separation and variation occur in each of the canonical gospels. die ap. denkw. mart. just., p. ; cf. hilgenfeld, die ew. justin's, p. . { } to our gospels. the nearest approach to it occurs in our first gospel, and we subjoin both passages for comparison: [--greek--] it is evident that justin's version is quite distinct from this, and cannot have been taken from our gospels,( ) although professedly derived from the memoirs of the apostles. justin likewise mentions the cry of jesus on the cross, "o god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" [--greek--];( ) as a fulfilment of the words of the psalm, which he quotes here, and elsewhere,( ) with the peculiar addition of the septuagint version, "attend to me" [--greek--], which, however, he omits when giving the cry of jesus, thereby showing that he follows a written source which did not contain it, for the quotation of the psalm, and of { } the cry which is cited to show that it refers to christ, immediately follow each other. he apparently knows nothing whatever of the chaldaic cry, "eli, eli, lama sabacthani" of the gospels.( ) the first and second gospels give the words of the cry from the chaldaic differently from justin, from the version of the lxx., and from each other. matthew xxvii. , [--greek--] the third gospel makes no mention at all of this cry, but instead has one altogether foreign to the other gospels: "and jesus cried with a loud voice, and said: father, into thy hands i commend my spirit: and having said this, he expired."( ) justin has this cry also, and in the same form as the third gospel. he says: "for when he (jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross, he said: 'father, into thy hands i commend my spirit,' as i have also learned from the memoirs."( ) justin's gospel, therefore, contained both cries, and as even the first two synoptics mention a second cry of jesus( ) without, however, giving the words, it is not surprising that other gospels should have existed which included both. even if we had no trace of this cry in any other ancient work, there would be no ground for asserting that justin must have derived it from the third gospel, for if there be any historical truth in the statement that these words were actually spoken by jesus, it follows of course that they may have been, and probably were, reported in a dozen christian writings now { } no longer extent, and in all probability they existed in some of the many works referred to in the prologue to the third gospel. both cries, however, are given in the gospel of nieodemus, or gesta pilati, to which reference has already so frequently been made. in the greek versions edited by teschendorf we find only the form contained in luke. in the codex a, the passage reads: "and crying with a loud voice, jesus said: father, baddach ephkid rouchi, that is, interpreted: 'into thy hands i commend my spirit;' and having said this he gave up the ghost."(l) in the codex b, the text is: "then jesus having called out with a loud voice: 'father, into thy hands will i commend my spirit,' expired."( ) in the ancient latin version, however, both cries are given: "and about the ninth hour jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, hely, hely, lama zabacthani, which interpreted is: 'my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me.' and after this, jesus said: 'father, into thy hands i commend my spirit': and saying this, he gave up the ghost."( ) one of the codices of the same apocryphal work likewise gives the taunting speeches of the jews in a form more nearly approaching that of justin's memoirs { } than any found in our gospels. "and the jews that stood and looked ridiculed him, and said: if thou saidst truly that thou art the son of god, come down from the cross, and at once, that we may believe in thee. others ridiculing, said: he saved others, he healed others, and restored the sick, the paralytic, lepers, demoniacs, the blind, the lame, the dead, and himself he cannot heal."( ) the fact that justin actually refers to certain acta pilati in connection with the crucifixion renders this coincidence all the more important. other texts of this gospel read: "and the chief priests, and the rulers with them, derided him, saying: he saved others, let him save himself; if he is the son of god, let him come down from the cross."( ) it is clear from the whole of justin's treatment of the narrative, that he followed a gospel adhering more closely than the canonical to the psalm xxii., but yet with peculiar variations from it. our gospels differ very much from each other; justin's memoirs of the apostles in like manner differed from them. it had its characteristic features clearly and sharply defined. in this way his systematic variations are natural and perfectly intelligible, but they become totally inexplicable if it be supposed that, having our gospels for his source, he thus ev. niood., pars. i. a. x.; tischendorf ev. apocr., p. ; cf. thilo. cod. apocr. n. t., p. ; fabricius, cod. apocr. n. t., i. p. ; tiachendorf ib., p. . there are differences between all these texts--indeed there are scarcely two mss. which agree--clearly indicating that wo have now nothing but corrupt versions of a more ancient text. { } persistently and in so arbitrary a way ignored, modified, or contradicted their statements. upon two occasions justin distinctly states that the jews sent persons throughout the world to spread calumnies against christians. "when you knew that he had risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophets had foretold, not only did you (the jews) not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent forth from jerusalem throughout the land chosen men, saying that the atheistic heresy of the christians had arisen/' &c.( ).... "from a certain jesus, a galilrean impostor, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb where he had been laid when he was unloosed from the cross, and they now deceive men, saying that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven."( ) this circumstance is not mentioned by our gospels, but, reiterated twice by justin in almost the same words, it was in all probability contained in the memoirs. eusebius quotes the passage from justin, without comment, evidently on account of the information which it conveyed. these instances, which, although far from complete, have already occupied too much of our space, show that justin quotes from the memoirs of the apostles many statements and facts of gospel history which are not only foreign to our gospels, but in some cases contradictory to them, whilst the narrative of the most solemn events in the life of jesus presents distinct and systematic variations from parallel passages in the synoptic records. { } it will now be necessary to compare his general quotations from the same memoirs with the canonical gospels, and here a very wide field opens before us. as we have already stated, justin's works teem with these quotations, and to take them all in detail would be impossible within the limits of this work. such a course, moreover, is unnecessary. it may be broadly stated that even those who maintain the use of the canonical gospels can only point out two or three passages out of this vast array which verbally agree with them.( ) this extraordinary anomaly--on the supposition that justin's memoirs were in fact our gospels--is, as we have mentioned, explained by the convenient hypothesis that justin quotes imperfectly from memory, interweaves and modifies texts, and in short freely manipulates these gospels according to his argument. even strained to the uttermost, however, could this be accepted as a reasonable explanation of such systematic variation, that only twice or thrice out of the vast number of his quotations does he literally agree with passages in them? in order to illustrate the case with absolute impartiality we shall first take the instances brought forward as showing agreement with our synoptic gospels. teschendorf only cites two passages in support of his affirmation that justin makes use of our first gospel.( ) it might be supposed that, in selecting these, at least two might have been produced literally agreeing, but this is { } not the case, and this may be taken as an illustration of the almost universal variation of justin's quotations. the first of teschendorf s examples is the supposed use of matthew viii. , : "many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down," &c. [--greek--]. now this passage is repeated by justin no less than three times in three very distinct parts of his dialogue with trypho,( ) with a uniform variation from the text of matthew--_they_ shall come from the _west_ and from the east," &c. &c. [--greek--]( ) that a historical saying of jesus should be reproduced in many gospels, and that no particular work can have any prescriptive right to it, must be admitted, so that even if the passage in justin agreed literally with our first synoptic, it would not afford any proof of the actual use of that gospel; but when on the contrary justin upon three several occasions, and at distinct intervals of time, repeats the passage with the same persistent variation from the reading in matthew, not only can it not be ascribed to that gospel, but there is reason to conclude that justin derived it from another source. it may be added that [--greek--] is anything but a word uncommon in the vocabulary of justin, and that elsewhere, for instance, he twice quotes a passage similar to one in matthew, in which, amongst other variations, he reads "_many_ shall come [--greek--]," instead of the phrase found in that gospel.( ) the second example adduced by tischendorf is the supposed quotation of matthew xii. ; but in order fully { } to comprehend the nature of the affirmation, we quote the context of the gospel and of justin in parallel columns:-- [--greek--] now it is clear that justin here directly professes to quote from the memoirs, and consequently that accuracy may be expected; but passing over the preliminary substitution of "some of your nation," for "certain of the scribes and pharisees," although it recalls the "some of them," and "others," by which the parallel passage, otherwise so different, is introduced in luke xi. , , ff.,( ) the question of the jews, which should be literal, is quite different from that of the first gospel, whilst there are variations in the reply of jesus, which, if not so important, are still undeniable. we cannot compare with the first gospel the parallel passages in the second and third gospels without recognizing that other works may have narrated the { } same episode with similar variations, and whilst the distinct differences which exist totally exclude the affirmation that justin quotes from matthew, everything points to the conclusion that he makes use of another source. this is confirmed by another important circumstance. after enlarging during the remainder of the chapter upon the example of the people of nineveh, justin commences the next by returning to the answer of jesus, and making the following statement: "and though all of your nation were acquainted with these things which occurred to jonah, and christ proclaimed among you, that he would give you the sign of jonah, exhorting you at least after his resurrection from the dead to repent of your evil deeds, and like the ninevites to supplicate god, that your nation and city might not be captured and destroyed as it has been destroyed; yet not only have you not repented on learning his resurrection from the dead, but as i have already said,( ) you sent chosen( ) and select men throughout all the world, proclaiming that an atheistic and impious heresy had arisen from a certain jesus, a galilaean impostor," &c. &c.( ) now not only do our gospels not mention this mission, as we have already pointed out, but they do not contain the exhortation to repent at least after the resurrection of jesus here referred to, and which evidently must have formed part of the episode in the memoirs. tischendorf does not produce any other instances of supposed quotations of justin from matthew, but rests his case upon these. as these are the best examples apparently which he can point out, we may judge of the { } weakness of his argument. do wette divides the quotations of justin which may be compared with our first and third gospels into several categories. regarding the first class, he says: "some agree quite literally, which, however, is seldom: "( ) and under this head he can only collect three passages of matthew and refer to one of luke. of the three from matthew the first is that, viii. , ,( ) also brought forward by teschendorf, of which we have already disposed. the second is matt. v. : "for i say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." a parallel passage to this exists in dial. , a chapter in which there are several quotations not found in our gospels at all, with the exception that the first words, "for i say unto you that," are not in justin. we shall speak of this passage presently. de wette's third passage is matt. vii. : "every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire," which, with the exception of one word, "but," at the commencement of the sentence in justin, also agrees with his quotation.( ) in these two short passages there are no peculiarities specially pointing to the first gospel as their source, and it cannot be too often repeated that the mere coincidence of short historical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion that the one is dependent on the other. in order, however, to enable the reader to form a correct estimate of the value of the similarity of the two passages above noted, and also at the same time to examine a considerable body of evidence, selected with { } evident impartiality, we propose to take all justin's readings of the sermon on the mount, from which the above passages are taken, and compare them with our gospels. this should furnish a fair test of the composition of the memoirs of the apostles. taking first, for the sake of continuity, the first apology, we find that chapters xv., xvi., xvii., are composed almost entirely of examples of what jesus himself taught, introduced by the remark with which chapter xiv. closes, that: "brief and concise sentences were uttered by him, for he was not a sophist, but his word was the power of god."( ) it may broadly be affirmed that, with the exception of the few words quoted above by de wette, not a single quotation of the words of jesus in these three chapters agrees with the canonical gospels. we shall however confine ourselves at present to the sermon on the mount. we must mention that justin's text is quite continuous, except where we have inserted asterisks. we subjoin justin's quotations, together with' the parallel passages in our gospels, side by side, for greater facility of comparison.( ) [--greek--] how completely this description contradicts the representation of the fourth gospel of the discourses of jesus. it seems clearly to indicate that justin had no knowledge of that gospel. it need not be said that the variations between the quotations of justin and the text of our gospels must be looked for only in the greek. for the sake of the reader unacquainted with greok, however, we shall endeavour as far as possible to indicate in translation where differences exist, although this cannot of course be fully done, nor often, without being more literal than is desirable. whore it is not necessary to amend the authorized version of the new testament for the sake of more closely following the text, and marking differences from justin, wo shall adopt it. we divide the quotations where desirable by initial letters, in order to assist reference at the end of our quotations from the sermon on the mount. { } [---greek---] matt. v. , , it will be remembered, are repeated with some variation and also reversed in order, and with a totally different context, matt, xviii. , . the latter verse, the greek of the concluding part of which we give above, approximates more nearly in form to justin's, but is still widely different. "and if thine eye ('right' omitted) offend thee pluck it out and cast it from theo; it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." the sequence of matt. v. , , points specially to it. the double occurrence of this passage, however, with a different context, and with the order reversed in matthew, renders it almost certain that the two passages a. and b. were separate in the memoirs. the reading of mark ix. , is equally distinct from justin's: and if thine eye offend thee cast it out [--greek--]; it is good for thee [--greek--] to enter into the kingdom of god [--greek--] with one eye rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell, [--greek--] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] in the first gospel the subject breaks off at the end of v. . v. may be compared with justin's continuation, but it is fundamentally different. the parallel passages in luke vi. , , present still greater variations. we have given vi. above, as nearer justin than matt. v. . it will be remarked that to find a parallel for justin's continuation, without break, of the subject, we must jump from matt. v. , , to vi. , . { } [---greek---] this phrase, it will bo observed, is also introduced higher up in the passage, and its repetition in such a manner, with the same variations, emphatically demonstrates the unity of the whole quotation. there is no parallel to this in the first gospel. matt. v. , is too remote in sense as well as language. the first part of v. is quite different from the context in justin: "that ye may be sons of your father which is in heaven: for he maketh," &c, &c. { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] { } [---greek---] we have taken the whole of justin's quotations from the sermon on the mount not only because, adopting so large a test, there can be no suspicion that we select passages for any special purpose, but also because, on the contrary, amongst these quotations are more of the passages claimed as showing the use of our gospels than any series which could have been selected. it will have been observed that most of the passages follow each other in unbroken sequence in justin, for with the exception of a short break between y and the whole extract down to the end of is continuous, as indeed, after another brief interruption at the end of i, it is again to the close of the very long and remarkable passage k. with two exceptions, therefore, the whole of these quotations from the sermon on the mount occur consecutively in two succeeding chapters of justin's first apology, and one passage follows in the next chapter. only a single passage comes from a distant part of the dialogue with trypho. these passages are bound together by clear unity of idea and context, and as, where there is a separation of sentences in his gospel, justin clearly marks it by [--greek--], there is every reason to decide that those quotations which are continuous in form and in argument were likewise consecutive in the memoirs. now the hypothesis that these quotations are from the { } canonical gospels requires the assumption of the fact that justin, with singular care, collected from distant and scattered portions of those gospels a series of passages in close sequence to each other, forming a whole unknown to them but complete in itself, and yet, although this is carefully performed, he at the same time with the most systematic carelessness misquoted and materially altered almost every precept he professes to cite. the order of the canonical gospels is as entirely set at naught as their language is disregarded. as hilgenfeld has pointed out, throughout the whole of this portion of his quotations the undeniable endeavour after accuracy, on the one hand, is in the most glaring contradiction with the monstrous carelessness on the other, if it be supposed that our gospels are the source from which justin quotes. nothing is more improbable than the conjecture that he made use of the canonical gospels, and we must accept the conclusion that justin quotes with substantial correctness the expressions in the order in which he found them in his peculiar gospel.( ) it is a most arbitrary proceeding to dissect a passage, quoted by justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole, and finding parallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered up and down distant parts of our gospels, scarcely one of which is not materially different from the reading of justin, to assert that he is quoting these gospels freely from memory, altering, excising, combining, and interweaving texts, and introverting their order, but nevertheless making use of them and not of others. it is perfectly obvious that such an assertion is nothing but the merest assumption. our synoptic gospels themselves condemn { } it utterly, for precisely similar differences of order and language exist in them and distinguish between them. not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and, discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the gospels, to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it stands, from another source.( ) as an illustration from our gospels, let us for a moment suppose the "gospel according to luke" to have been lost, like the "gospel according to the hebrews" and so many others. in the works of one of the fathers, we discover the following quotation from an unnamed evangelical work: "and he said unto them [--greek--]: the harvest truly is great but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. go your ways: [--greek--] behold i send you forth as lambs [--greek--] in the midst of wolves." following the system adopted in regard to justin, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a compilation from memory of passages quoted freely from our first gospel, that is to say matt. ix. . "then saith he unto his disciples [--greek--] the harvest," &c, and matt. x. , "behold i [--greek--] send you forth as sheep [--greek--] in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore," &c, which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. it would probably be in vain for the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader may be referred to canon westcott's work on the canon, p. -- . dr. westcott does not, of course, deny the fact that justin's quotations are different from the text of our gospels, but he accounts for his variations ou grounds which seem to us purely imaginary. it is evident that, so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no proof of identity is possible. { } to argue that the quotation indicated a continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the probability of a different source, and still more so to point out that, although parts of the quotation separated from their context might to a certain extent correspond with scattered verses in the first gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation was taken from that and from no other gospel. the passage, however, is a literal quotation from luke x. , , which, as we have assumed, had been lost. again, still supposing the third gospel no longer extant, we might find the following quotation in a work of the fathers: "take heed to yourselves [--greek--] of the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy [--greek--]. for there is nothing covered up [--greek--] which shall not be revealed, and hid which shall not be known." it would of course be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of our first gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory words "which is hypocrisy" introduced by the father, and not a part of the quotation at all. the two verses are matt. xvi. : "beware and [--greek--] take heed of the leaven of the pharisees and sadducees" [--greek--] and matt. x. .... "for [--greek--] there is nothing covered [--greek--] that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known." the sentence would in fact be divided as in the case of justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in separate portions of the gospel. how wrong such a system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to justin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation, { } instead of being such a combination, is simply taken from the gospel according to luke xii. , , as it stands. to give one more example, and such might easily be multiplied, if our second gospel had been lost, and the following passage were met with in one of the fathers without its source being indicated, what would be the argument of those who insist that justin's quotations, though differing from our gospels, were yet taken from them? "if any one have [--greek--] ears to hear let him hear. and he said unto them: take heed what [--greek--] ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you: and more shall be given unto you. for he [--greek--] that hath to him shall be given, and he [--greek--] that hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath." upon the principle on which justin's quotations are treated, it would certainly be affirmed positively that this passage was a quotation from our first and third gospels combined and made from memory. the exigencies of the occasion might probably cause the assertion to be made that the words: "and he said to them," really indicated a separation of the latter part of the quotation from the preceding, and that the father thus showed that the passage was not consecutive; and as to the phrase: "and more shall be given unto you," that it was evidently an addition of the father. the passage would be dissected, and its different members compared with scattered sentences, and declared almost literal quotations from the canonical gospels: matt. xiii. . he that hath [--greek--] ears to hear let him hear."(l) luke viii. , "take heed therefore how [--greek--] ye hear." matt. vii. ... "with what measure ye { } mete it shall be measured to you."( ) matt. xiii. : "for whosoever [--greek--] hath, to him shall be given (and he shall have abundance); but whosoever [--greek--] hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath." a in spite of these ingenious assertions, however, the quotation in reality is literally and consecutively taken from mark iv. -- . these examples may suffice to show that any argument which commences by the assumption that the order of a passage quoted may be entirely disregarded, and that it is sufficient to find parallels scattered irregularly up and down the gospels to warrant the conclusion that the passage is compiled from them, and is not a consecutive quotation from some other source, is utterly unfounded and untenable. the supposition of a lost gospel which has just been made to illustrate this argument is, however, not a mere supposition as applied to justin but a fact, for we no longer have the gospel according to peter nor that according to the hebrews, not to mention the numerous other works in use in the early church. the instances we have given show the importance of the order as well as the language of justin's quotations, and while they prove the impossibility of demonstrating that a consecutive passage which differs not only in language but in order from the parallels in our gospels must be derived from them, they likewise prove the probability that such passages are actually quoted from a different source. if we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion. supposing the third gospel to be lost, what would be the source assigned to the { } following quotation from an unnamed gospel in the work of one of the fathers? "no servant [--greek--] can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. ye cannot serve god and mammon." of course the passage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of matt. vi. , with which it perfectly corresponds with the exception of the addition of the second word [--greek--], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident and very natural amplification of the simple [--greek--] of the first gospel. yet this passage, only differing by the single word from matthew, is a literal quotation from the gospel according to luke xvi. . or, to take another instance, supposing the third gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the fathers: "beware [--greek--] of the scribes which desire to walk in long robes, and love [--greek--] greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts; which devour widows( ) houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation." this would without hesitation be declared a quotation from memory of mark xii.. - ".... beware [--greek--] of the scribes which desire to walk in long robes and greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive," &c. it is however a literal quotation of luke xx. , ; yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not derived from mark but from a lost gospel. to quote one more instance, let us { } suppose the "gospel according to mark" no longer extant, and that in some early work there existed the following quotation: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye [--greek--] of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god." this would of course be claimed as a quotation from memory of matt. xix. ,( ) with which it agrees with the exception of the substitution of [--greek--] for the [--greek--]. it would not the less have been an exact quotation from mark x. .( ) we have repeatedly pointed out that the actual agreement of any saying of jesus, quoted by one of the early fathers from an unnamed source, with a passage in our gospels is by no means conclusive evidence that the quotation was actually derived from that gospel. it must be apparent that literal agreement in reporting short and important sayings is not in itself so surprising as to constitute proof that, occurring in two histories, the one must have copied from the other. the only thing which is surprising is that such frequent inaccuracy should occur. when we add, however, the fact that most of the larger early evangelical works, including our synoptic gospels, must have been compiled out of the same original sources, and have been largely indebted to each other, the common possession of such sayings becomes { } a matter of natural occurrence. moreover, it must be admitted even by apologetic critics that, in a case of such vast importance as the report of sayings of jesus, upon the verbal accuracy of which the most essential doctrines of christianity depend, it cannot be considered strange if various gospels report the same saying in the same words. practically, the synoptic gospels differ in their reports a great deal more than is right or desirable; but we may take them as an illustration of the fact, that identity of passages, where the source is unnamed, by no means proves that such passages in a work of the early fathers were derived from one gospel, and not from any other. let us suppose our first gospel to have been lost, and the following quotation from an unnamed source to be found in an early work: "every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." this being in literal agreement with luke iii. , would certainly be declared by modern apologists conclusive proof that the father was acquainted with that gospel, and although the context in the work of the father might for instance be: "ye shall know them from their works, and every tree," &c, &c, and yet in the third gospel, the context is: "and now also, the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: and every tree," &c, that would by no means give them pause. the explanation of combination of texts, and quotation from memory, is sufficiently elastic for every emergency. now the words in question might in reality be a quotation from the lost gospel according to matthew, in which they twice occur, so that here is a passage which is literally repeated three times, matthew iii. , vii. , and luke iii . in matthew iii. , and in the third gospel, the words are part of a saying of john the { } baptist; whilst in matthew vii. , they are given as part of the sermon on the mount, with a different context, this passage is actually quoted by justin (k ), with the context: "ye shall know them from their works," which is different from that in any of the three places in which the words occur in our synoptics and, on the grounds we have clearly established, it cannot be considered in any case as necessarily a quotation from our gospels, but, on the contrary, there are good reasons for the very opposite conclusion. another illustration of this may be given, by supposing the gospel of luke to be no longer extant, and the following sentence in one of the fathers: "and ye shall be hated by all men, for my name's sake." these very words occur both in matthew x. , and mark xiii. , in both of which places there follow the words: "but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." there might here have been a doubt, as to whether the father derived the words from the first or second gospel, but they would have been ascribed either to the one or to the other, whilst in reality they were taken from a different work altogether, luke xxi. . here again, we have the same words in three gospels. in how many more may not the same passage have been found? one more instance to conclude. the following passage might be quoted from an unnamed source by one of the fathers: "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." if the gospel according to mark were no longer extant, this would be claimed as a quotation either from matthew xxiv. , or luke xxi. , in both of which it occurs, but, notwithstanding, the father might not have been acquainted with either of them, and simply have quoted from mark { } xiii. . and here again, the three gospels contain the same passage without variation. now in all these cases, not only is the selection of the gospel from which the quotation was actually taken completely an open question, since they all have it, but still more is the point uncertain, when it is considered that many other works may also have contained it, historical sayings being naturally common property. does the agreement of the quotation with a passage which is equally found in the three gospels prove the existence of all of them? and if not, how is the gospel from which it was actually taken to be distinguished? if it be difficult to do so, how much more when the possibility and probability, demonstrated by the agreement of the three extant, that it might have formed part of a dozen other works is taken into account in the case of justin, it is simply absurd and unreasonable, in the face of his persistent variation from our gospels, to assert positively that his quotations are derived from them. it must have been apparent to all that, throughout his quotation from the "sermon on the mount," justin follows an order which is quite different from that in our synoptic gospels, and as might have been expected, the inference of a different source, which is naturally suggested by this variation in order, is more than confirmed by persistent and continuous variation in language. if it be true, that examples of confusion of quotation are to be found in the works of clement of alexandria, origen, and other fathers, it must at the same time be remembered, that these are quite exceptional, and we are { } scarcely in a position to judge how far confusion of memory may not have arisen from reminiscences of other forms of evangelical expressions occurring in apocryphal works, with which we know the fathers to have been well acquainted. the most vehement asserter of the identity of the memoirs with our gospels, however, must absolutely admit as a fact, explain it as he may, that variation from our gospel readings is the general rule in justin's quotations, and agreement with them the very rare exception. now, such a phenomenon is elsewhere unparalleled in those times, when memory was more cultivated than with us in these days of cheap printed books, and it is unreasonable to charge justin with such universal want of memory and carelessness about matters which he held so sacred, merely to support a foregone conclusion, when the recognition of a difference of source, indicated in every direction, is so much more simple, natural, and justifiable. it is argued that justin's quotations from the old testament likewise present constant variation from the text. this is true to a considerable extent, but they are not so persistently inaccurate as the quotations we are examining, supposing them to be derived from our gospels. this pica, however, is of no avail, for it is obvious that the employment of the old testament is not established merely by inaccurate citations; and it is quite undeniable that the use of certain historical documents out of many of closely similar, and in many parts probably identical, character cannot be proved by anonymous quotations differing from anything actually in these documents. there are very many of the quotations of justin which bear unmistakable marks of exactness and verbal { } accuracy, but which yet differ materially from our gospels, and most of his quotations from the sermon on the mount are of this kind. for instance, justin introduces the passages which we have marked a, b, c, with the words: "he (jesus) spoke thus of chastity,"(l) and after giving the quotations, a, b, and c, the first two of which, although finding a parallel in two consecutive verses, matthew v. , , are divided by the separating [--greek--], and therefore do not appear to have been united in his gospel, justin continues: "just as even those who with the sanction of human law contract a second marriage are sinners in the eye of our master, so also are those who look upon a woman to lust after her. for not only he who actually commits adultery is rejected by him, but also he who desires to commit adultery, since not our acts alone are open before god, but also our thoughts."( ) now it is perfectly clear that justin here professes to give the actual words of jesus, and then moralizes upon them; and both the quotation and his own subsequent paraphrase of it lose all their significance, if we suppose that justin did not correctly quote in the first instance, but actually commences by altering the text.( ) these passages a, b, and c, however, have all marked and characteristic variations from the gospel text, but as we have already shown, there is no reason for asserting that they are not accurate verbal quotations from another gospel. { } the passage is likewise a professed quotation,( ) but not only does it differ in language, but it presents deliberate transpositions in order which clearly indicate that justin's source was not our gospels. the nearest parallels in our gospels are found in matthew v. , followed by . the same remarks apply to the next passage �, which is introduced as a distinct quotation,( ) but which, like the rest, differs materially, linguistically and in order, from the canonical gospels. the whole of the passage is consecutive, and excludes the explanation of a mere patchwork of passages loosely put together, and very imperfectly quoted from memory. justin states that jesus taught that we should communicate to those who need, and do nothing for vain glory, and he then gives the very words of jesus in an unbroken and clearly continuous discourse. christians are to give to all who ask, and not merely to those from whom they hope to receive again, which would be no new thing--even the publicans do that; but christians must do more. they are not to lay up riches on earth, but in heaven, for it would not profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul; therefore, the teacher a second time repeats the injunction that christians should lay up treasures in heaven. if the unity of thought which binds this passage so closely together were not sufficient to prove that it stood in justin's gospel in the form and order in which he quotes it, the requisite evidence would be supplied by the repetition at its close of the injunction: "lay up, therefore, in the heavens," &c. it is impossible that justin should, through defect of memory, quote a second time in so short a passage the same injunction, if the passage were not thus appropriately terminated in { } his gospel. the common sense of the reader must at once perceive that it is impossible that justin, professedly quoting words of jesus, should thus deliberately fabricate a discourse rounded off by the repetition of one of its opening admonitions, with the addition of an argumentative "therefore." he must have found it so in the gospel from which he quotes. nothing indeed but the difficulty of explaining the marked variations presented by this passage, on the supposition that justin must quote from our gospels, could lead apologists to insinuate such a process of compilation, or question the consecutive character of this passage. the nearest parallels to the dismembered parts of this quotation, presenting everywhere serious variations, however, can only be found in the following passages in the order in which we cite them, matthew v. , luke vi. , matthew vi. , , xvi. , and a repetition of part of vi. , with variations. moreover, the expression: "what new thing do ye?" is quite peculiar to justin. we have already met with it in the preceding section . "if ye love them which love you, what _new_ thing do ye? for even," &c. here, in the same verse, we have: "if ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive, what _new_ thing do ye? for even," &c. it is evident, both from its repetition and its distinct dogmatic view of christianity as a new teaching in contrast to the old, that this variation cannot have been the result of defective memory, but must have been the reading of the memoirs, and, in all probability, it was the original form of the teaching. such antithetical treatment is clearly indicated in many parts of the sermon on the mount: for instance, matthew v. , "ye have heard that it hath been said _by them of old_.... but _i_ say unto you,' &c, cf. v. , , . it is certain that { } the whole of the quotation e differs very materially from our gospels, and there is every reason to believe that not only was the passage not derived from them, but that it was contained in the memoirs of the apostles substantially in the form and order in which justin quotes it.( ) the next passage (f)( ) is separated from the preceding merely by the usual [--greek--] and it moves on to its close with the same continuity of thought and the same peculiarities of construction which characterize that which we have just considered. christians are to be kind and merciful [--greek--] to all as their father is, who makes his sun to shine alike on the good and evil, and they need not be anxious about their own temporal necessities: what they shall eat and what put on; are they not better than the birds and beasts whom god feedeth? therefore, they are not to be careful about what they are to eat and what put on, for their heavenly father knows they have need of these things; but they are to seek the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added: for where the treasure is--the thing he seeks and is careful about--there will also be the mind of the man. in fact, the passage is a suitable continuation of c, inculcating, like it, abstraction from worldly cares and thoughts in reliance on the heavenly father, and the mere fact that a separation is made where it is between the two passages c and £ shows further that each of those passages was complete in itself. there is absolutely no reason for the separating /cat, if these passages were a mere combination of scattered verses. this quotation, however, which is so consecutive in justin, can only find distant parallels in passages widely divided throughout the synoptic { } gospels, which have to be arranged in the following order: luke vi. , matt. v. , vi. , , , , , vi. , the whole of which present striking differences from justin's quotation. the repetition of the injunction "be not careful" again with the illative "therefore" is quite in the spirit of e. this admonition: "therefore, be not careful," &c, is reiterated no less than three times in the first gospel (vi , , ), and confirms the characteristic repetition of justin's gospel, which seems to have held a middle course between matthew and luke, the latter of which does not repeat the phrase, although the injunction is made a second time in more direct terms. the repetition of the passage: "be ye kind and merciful," &c, in dial. , with the same context and peculiarities, is a remarkable confirmation of the natural conclusion that justin quotes the passage from a gospel different from ours. the expression [--greek--] thrice repeated by justin himself, and supported by a similar duplication in the clementine homilies (iii. )( ) cannot possibly be an accidental departure from our gospels.( ) for the rest it is undeniable that the whole passage £ differs materially both in order and language from our gospels, from which it cannot without unwarrantable assumption be maintained to have been taken either collectively or in detail, and strong internal reasons lead us to conclude that it is quoted substantially as it stands from justin's { } gospel, which must have been different from our synoptics.( ) in again, we have an express quotation introduced by the words: "and regarding our being patient under injuries and ready to help all, and free from anger, this is what he said;" and then he proceeds to give the actual words.( ) at the close of the quotation he continues: "for we ought not to strive, neither would he have us be imitators of the wicked, but he has exhorted us by patience and gentleness to lead men from shame and the love of evil," &c., &c.( ) it is evident that these observations, which are a mere paraphrase of the text, indicate that the quotation itself is deliberate and precise. justin professes first to quote the actual teaching of jesus, and then makes his own comments; but if it be assumed that he began by concocting out of stray texts, altered to suit his purpose, a continuous discourse, the subsequent observations seem singularly useless and out of place. although the passage forms a consecutive and harmonious discourse, the nearest parallels in our gospels can only be found by uniting parts of the following scattered verses: matthew v. , , , , . the christian who is struck on one cheek is to turn the other, and not to resist those who would take away his cloak or coat; but if, on the contrary, he be angry, he is in danger of fire; if, then, he be compelled to go one mile, let him show his gentleness by going two, and thus let his good works shine before men that, seeing them, they may adore his father which is in heaven. it is evident that the last two sentences, which find their parallels in matt by putting v. after , the former verse having { } quite a different context in the gospel, must have so followed each other in justin's text. his purpose is to quote the teaching of jesus, "regarding our being patient under injuries, and ready to help all and free from anger," but his quotation of "let your good works shine before men," &c, has no direct reference to his subject, and it cannot reasonably be supposed that justin would have selected it from a separate part of the gospel. coming as it no doubt did in his memoirs in the order in which he quotes it, it is quite appropriate to his purpose. it is difficult, for instance, to imagine why justin further omitted the injunction in the parallel passage, matthew v. , "that ye resist not evil," when supposed to quote the rest of the verse, since his express object is to show that "we ought not to strive," &c. the whole quotation presents the same characteristics as those which we have already examined, and in its continuity of thought and wide variation from the parallels in our gospels, both in order and language, we must recognize a different and peculiar source.( ) the passage i, again, is professedly a literal quotation, for justin prefaces it with the words: "and regarding our not swearing at all, but ever speaking the truth, he taught thus;" and having in these words actually stated what jesus did teach, he proceeds to quote his very words.( ) in the quotation there is a clear departure from our gospel, arising, not from accidental failure-of memory, but from difference of source. the parallel passages in our gospels, so far as they exist at all, can only be found by taking part of matthew v. and joining it to v. , omitting the intermediate verses. the quotation in the { } epistle of james v. , which is evidently derived from a source different from matthew, supports the reading of justin. this, with the passage twice repeated in the clementine homilies in agreement with justin, and, it may be added, the peculiar version found in early ecclesiastical writings,( ) all tend to confirm the belief that there existed a more ancient form of the injunction which justin no doubt found in his memoirs.( ) the precept, terse, simple, and direct, as it is here, is much more in accordance with justin's own description of the teaching of jesus, as he evidently found it in his gospel, than the diffused version contained in the first gospel, v. -- . another remarkable and characteristic illustration of the peculiarity of justin's memoirs is presented by the long passage k, which is also throughout consecutive and bound together by clear unity of thought.( ) it is presented with the context: "for not those who merely make professions but those who do the works, as he (jesus) said, shall be saved. for he spake thus." it does not, therefore, seem possible to indicate more clearly the deliberate intention to quote the exact expressions of jesus, and yet not only do we find material difference from the language in the parallel passages in our gospels, but those parallels, such as they are, can only be made by patching together the following verses in the order in { } which we give them: matt. vii. , luke x. , matt. vii. , , xiii. , , vii. , part of , . it will be remarked that the passage (k ) luke x. , is thrust in between two consecutive verses in matthew, and taken from a totally different context as the nearest parallel to k of justin, although it is widely different from it, omitting altogether the most important words: "and doeth what i say." the repetition of the same phrase: "he that heareth me heareth him that sent me," in apol. i, ,( ) makes it certain that justin accurately quotes his gospel, whilst the omission of the words in that place: "and doeth what i say," evidently proceeds from the fact that they are an interruption of the phrase for which justin makes the quotation, namely, to prove that jesus is sent forth to reveal the father.( ) it may be well to compare justin's passage, k -- , with one occurring in the so-called second epistle of clement to the corinthians, iv. "let us not, therefore, only call him lord, for that will not save us. for he saith: 'not every one that saith to me, lord, lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness.'... the lord said: 'if ye be with me gathered together in my bosom, and do not my commandments, i will cast you off and say to you: depart from me; i know you not, whence you are, workers of iniquity.'"( ) the expression [--greek--] here strongly recalls the reading of justin.( ) this passage, which is foreign to { } our gospels, at least shows the existence of others containing parallel discourses with distinct variations. some of the quotations in this spurious epistle are stated to be taken from the "gospel according to the egyptians,"( ) which was in all probability a version of the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) the variations which occur in justin's repetition, in dial , of his quotation k are not important, because the more weighty departure from the gospel in the words "did we not eat and drink in thy name," [--greek--] is deliberately repeated,( ) and if, therefore, there be freedom of quotation it is free quotation not from the canonical, but from a different gospel.( ) origen's quotation( ) does not affect this conclusion, for the repetition of the phrase [--greek--] has the form of the gospel, and besides, which is much more important, we know that origen was well acquainted with the gospel according to the hebrews and other apocryphal works from which this may have been a reminiscence.( ) we must add, moreover, that the passage in dial appears in connection with others widely differing from our gospels. the passage k not only materially varies from the parallel in matt. xiii. , in language but in connection of ideas.( ) here also, upon examination, we must conclude that justin quotes from a source different from our { } gospels, and moreover, that his gospel gives with greater correctness the original form of the passage.( ) the weeping and gnashing of teeth are distinctly represented as the consequence when the wicked see the bliss of the righteous while they are sent into everlasting fire, and not as the mere characteristics of hell. it will be observed that the preceding passages k and , find parallels to a certain extent in matt. vii. , , although luke xiii. , , is in some respects closer to the reading of justin k , however, finds no continuation of parallel in matt, vii., from which the context comes, but we have to seek it in xiii. , . k , however, does find its continuing parallel in the next verse in luke xiii. , where we have "there shall be (the) weeping and (the) gnashing of teeth when ye shall see abraham," &c there is here, it is evident, the connection of ideas which is totally lacking in matt. xiii. , , where the verses in question occur as the conclusion to the exposition of the parable of the tares. now, although it is manifest that luke xiii. , cannot possibly have been the source from which justin quotes, still the opening words and the sequence of ideas demonstrate the great probability that other gospels must have given, after k , a continuation which is wanting after matt. vii. , but which is indicated in the parallel luke xiii. ( , ) , and is somewhat closely followed in matt. xiii. , . when such a sequence is found in an avowed quotation from justin's gospel, it is certain that he must have found it there substantially as he quotes it. the passage k ,( ) "for many shall arrive," &c, is a very important one, and it departs { } emphatically from the parallel in our first gospel. instead of being, like the latter, a warning against false prophets, it is merely the announcement that many deceivers shall come. this passage is rendered more weighty by the fact that justin repeats it with little variation in dial. , and immediately after quotes a saying of jesus of only five words which is not found in our gospels, and then he repeats a quotation to the same effect in the shape of a warning: "beware of false prophets," &c, like that in matt. vii. , but still distinctly differing from it.( ) it is perfectly clear that justin quotes two separate passages.( ) it is impossible that he could intend to repeat the same quotation at an interval of only five words; it is equally impossible that, having quoted it in the one form, he could so immediately quote it in the other through error of memory.( ) the simple and very natural conclusion is that he found both passages in his gospel. the object for which he quotes would more than justify the quotation of both passages, the one referring to the many false christians and the other to the false prophets of whom he is speaking. that two passages so closely related should be found in the same gospel is not in the least singular. there are numerous instances of the same in our synoptics.( ) the actual facts of the case then are these: justin quotes in the dialogue, with the same marked deviations from the { } parallel in the gospel, a passage quoted by him m the apology, and after an interval of only five words he quotes a second passage to the same effect, though with very palpable difference in its character, which likewise differs from the gospel, in company with other texts which still less find any parallels in the canonical gospels. the two passages, by their differences, distinguish each other as separate, whilst, by their agreement in common variations from the parallel in matthew, they declare their common origin from a special gospel, a result still further made manifest by the agreement between the first passage in the dialogue and the quotations in the apology. in k ,( ) justin's gospel substitutes [--greek--] for [--greek--], and is quite in the spirit of the passage o, "ye shall know them from their _works_" is the natural reading. the gospel version clearly introduces "fruit" prematurely, and weakens the force of the contrast which follows. it will be observed, moreover, that in order to find a parallel to justin's passage k , , only the first part of matt. vii. , is taken, and the thread is only caught again at vii. , k being one of the two passages indicated by de wette which we are considering, and it agrees with matt. vii. , with the exception of the single word [--greek--]. we must again point out, however, that this passage in matt. vii. , is repeated no less than three times in our gospels, a second time in matt iii. , and once in luke iii. . upon two occasions it is placed in the mouth of john the baptist, and forms the second portion of a sentence the whole of which is found in literal agreement both in matt. iii. , and luke iii. , "but now the axe is laid unto the root of the trees, therefore every tree," &c, &c. { } the passage pointed out by de wette as the parallel to justin's anonymous quotation, matt. vii. --a selection which is of course obligatory from the context--is itself a mere quotation by jesus of part of the saying of the baptist, presenting, therefore, double probability of being well known; and as we have three instances of its literal reproduction in the synoptics, it would indeed be arbitrary to affirm that it was not likewise given literally in other gospels. the passage x( ) is very emphatically given as a literal quotation of the words of jesus, for justin cites it directly to authenticate his own statements of christian belief he says: "but if you disregard us both when we entreat, and when we set all things openly before you, we shall not suffer loss, believing, or rather being fully persuaded, that every one will be punished by eternal fire according to the desert of his deeds, and in proportion to the faculties which he received from god will his account be required, as christ declared when he said: to whom god gave more, of him shall more also be demanded again." this quotation has no parallel in the first gospel, but we add it here as part of the sermon on the mount. the passage in luke xii. , it will be perceived, presents distinct variation from it, and that gospel cannot for a moment be maintained as the source of justin's quotation. the last passage, ft, is one of those advanced by de wette which led to this examination.( ) it is likewise clearly a quotation, but as we have already shown, its agreement with matt v. , is no evidence that it was actually derived from that gospel. occurring as it does as one of numerous quotations from the sermon on the mount, whose general variation both in order and { } language from the parallels in our gospel points to the inevitable conclusion that justin derived them from a different source, there is no reason for supposing that this sentence also did not come from the same gospel. no one who has attentively considered the whole of these passages from the sermon on the mount, and still less those who are aware of the general rule of variation in his mass of quotations as compared with parallels in our gospels, can fail to be struck by the systematic departure from the order and language of the synoptics. the hypothesis that they are quotations from our gospels involves the accusation against justin of an amount of carelessness and negligence which is quite unparalleled in literature. justin's character and training, however, by. no means warrant any such aspersion,( ) and there are no grounds for it. indeed, but for the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the "memoirs of the apostles" with our gospels, such a charge would never have been thought of. it is unreasonable to suppose that avowed and deliberate quotations of sayings of jesus, made for the express purpose of furnishing authentic written proof of justin's statements regarding christianity, can as an almost invariable rule be so singularly incorrect, more especially when it is considered that these quotations occur in an elaborate apology for christianity addressed to the roman emperors, and in a careful and studied controversy with a jew in defence of the new faith. the simple and natural conclusion, supported by many strong reasons, is that justin derived his quotations from a gospel which was different from ours, although naturally by subject and design it must have been related to them. his { } gospel, in fact, differs from our synoptics as they differ from each other. we now return to tischendorf's statements with regard to justin's acquaintance with our gospels. having examined the supposed references to the first gospel, we find that tischendorf speaks much less positively with regard to his knowledge of the other two synoptics. he says: "there is the greatest probability that in several passages he also follows mark and luke."( ) first taking mark, we find that the only example which tischendorf gives is the following. he says: "twice (dial. and ) he quotes as an expression of the lord: 'the son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the scribes and pharisees (ch. by the 'pharisees and scribes'), and be crucified and the third day rise again.'( ) this agrees better with mark viii. and luke ix. than with matt. xvi. , only in justin the 'pharisees' are put instead of the 'elders and chief priests' (so matthew, mark, and luke), likewise 'be crucified' instead of 'be killed."'( ) this is the only instance of similarity with mark that tischendorf can produce, and we have given his own remarks to show how thoroughly weak his case is. the passage in mark viii. , reads: "and he began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests [--greek--], and the scribes and be killed [--greek--], and after three days [--greek--] { } rise again." and the following is the reading of luke ix. : "saying that the son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests [--greek--] and scribes and be killed [--greek--], and the third day rise again." it will be perceived that, different as it also is, the passage in luke is nearer than that of mark, which cannot in any case have been the source of justin's quotation. tischendorf, however, does not point out that justin, elsewhere, a third time refers to this very passage in the very same terms. he says: "and christ.... having come.... and himself also preached, saying.... that he must suffer many things from the scribes and pharisees and be crucified, and the third day rise again."(l) although this omits the words "and be rejected," it gives the whole of the passage literally as before. and thus there is the very remarkable testimony of a quotation three times repeated, with the same marked variations from our gospels, to show that justin found those very words in his memoirs.( ) the persistent variation clearly indicates a different source from our synoptics. we may, in reference to this reading, compare luke xxiv. : "he is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in galilee (v. ), saying that the son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, _and be crucified_, and the third day rise again." this reference to words of jesus, in which the words [--greek--]. occurred, as in justin, indicates that although our gospels do not contain it some others may well have { } done so. in one place justin introduces the saying with the following words: "for he exclaimed before the crucifixion, the son of man," &c.,( ) both indicating a time for the discourse, and also quoting a distinct and definite saying in contradistinction to this report of the matter of his teaching, which is the form in which the parallel passage occurs in the gospels. in justin's memoirs it no doubt existed as an actual discourse of jesus, which he verbally and accurately quoted. with regard to the third gospel, tischendorf says: "it is in reference to luke (xxii. ) that justin recalls in the dialogue ( ) the falling drops of the sweat of agony on the mount of olives, and certainly with an express appeal to the 'memoirs composed by his apostles and their followers,'"( ) now we have already seen( ) that justin, in the passage referred to, does not make use of the peculiar expression which gives the whole of its character to the account in luke, and that there is no ground for affirming that justin derived his information from that gospel. the only other reference to passages proving the "probability" of justin's use of luke or mark is that which we have just discussed--"the son of man must," &c. from this the character of tischendorf's assumptions may be inferred. de wette does not advance any instances of verbal agreement either with mark or luke.( ) he says, moreover: "the historical references are much freer still (than quotations), and combine in part { } the accounts of matthew and luke; some of the kind, however, are not found at all in our canonical gospels."( ) this we have already sufficiently demonstrated. we might now well terminate the examination of justin's quotations, which has already taken up too much of our space, but before doing so it may be well very briefly to refer to another point. in his work "on the canon," dr. westcott adopts a somewhat singular course. he evidently feels the very great difficulty in which anyone who asserts the identity of the source of justin's quotations with our gospels is placed by the fact that, as a rule, these quotations differ from parallel passages in our gospels; and whilst on the one hand maintaining that the quotations generally are from the canonical gospels, he on the other endeavours to reduce the number of those which profess to be quotations at all. he says: "to examine in detail the whole of justin's quotations would be tedious and unnecessary. it will be enough to examine ( ) those which are alleged by him as quotations, and ( ) those also which, though anonymous, are yet found repeated with the same variations either in justin's own writings, or ( ) in heretical works. it is evidently on these quotations that the decision hangs."( ) now under the first category dr. westcott finds very few. he says: "in seven passages only, as far as i can discover, does justin profess to give the exact words recorded in the memoirs; and in these, if there be no reason to the contrary, it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact language of the gospels which he used, just as in anonymous quotations we may conclude that he is trusting to memory."( ) { } before proceeding further, we may point out the straits to which an apologist is reduced who starts with a foregone conclusion. we have already seen a number of justin's professed quotations; but here, after reducing the number to seven only, our critic prepares a way of escape even out of these. it is difficult to understand what "reason to the contrary" can possibly justify a man "who professes to give the exact words recorded in the memoirs" for not doing what he professes; and further, it passes our comprehension to understand why, in anonymous quotations, "we may conclude that he is trusting to memory." the cautious exception is as untenable as the gratuitous assumption. dr. westcott continues as follows the passage which we have just interrupted:--"the result of a first view of the passages is striking. of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of st. matthew or st. luke, _exhibiting indeed three slight various readings not elsewhere found, but such as are easily explicable_; the sixth is a _compound summary_ of words related by st. matthew; the seventh alone _presents an important variation in the text of a verse_, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain."( ) the italics of course are ours. the "first view" of the passages and of the above statement is indeed striking. it is remarkable how easily difficulties are overcome under such an apologetic system. the striking result, to summarize canon westcott's own words, is this: out of seven professed quotations from the memoirs, in which he admits we may expect to find the exact language preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressed summary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an important variation. dr. { } westcott, on the same easy system, continues: "our inquiry is thus confined to the two last instances; and it must be seen whether their disagreement from the synoptic gospel is such as to outweigh the agreement of the remaining five."(l) before proceeding to consider these seven passages admitted by dr. westcott, we must point out that, in a note to the statement of the number, he mentions that he excludes other two passages as "not merely quotations of words, but concise narratives."( ) but surely this is a most extraordinary reason for omitting them, and one the validity of which cannot be admitted. as justin introduces them deliberately as quotations, why should they be excluded simply because they are combined with a historical statement? we shall produce them. the first is in apol. i. : "for the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels,( ) handed down that it was thus enjoined on them, that jesus, having taken bread and given thanks, said: 'this do in remembrance of me. this is my body.' and similarly, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said: 'this is my blood,' and delivered it to them alone."( ) this passage, it will be remembered, occurs in an elaborate apology for christianity addressed to the roman emperors, and justin is giving an account of the most solemn sacrament of his religion. here, if ever, we might reasonably expect accuracy and care, and justin, in fact, carefully { } indicates the source of the quotation he is going to make. it is difficult to understand any ground upon which so direct a quotation from the "memoirs of the apostles" could be set aside by canon westcott. justin distinctly states that the apostles in these memoirs have "thus" [--greek--] transmitted what was enjoined on us by jesus, and then gives the precise quotation. had the quotation agreed with our gospels, would it not have been claimed as a professedly accurate quotation from them? surely no one can reasonably pretend, for instance, that when justin, after this preamble, states that having taken bread, &c., _jesus said_: "this do in remembrance of me: this is my body;" or having taken the cup, &c, _he said_: "this is my blood"--justin does not deliberately mean to quote what jesus actually did say? now the account of the episode in luke is as follows (xxii. ): "and he took a cup, gave thanks, and said: take this, and divide it among yourselves. . for i say unto you, i will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of god shall come. . and he took bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave it unto them, saying: this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. . and in like manner the cup after supper, saying: this is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you."(l) dr. westcott of course only compares this passage of justin with luke, to which { } and the parallel in cor. xi. , wide as the difference is, it is closer than to the accounts in the other two gospels. that justin professedly quoted literally from the memoirs is evident, and is rendered still more clear by the serious context by which the quotation is introduced, the quotation in fact being made to authenticate by actual written testimony the explanations of justin. his dogmatic views, moreover, are distinctly drawn from a gospel, which, in a more direct way than our synoptics do, gave the expressions: "this is my body," and "this is my blood," and it must have been observed that luke, with which justin's reading alone is compared, not only has not: [--greek--], at all, but instead makes use of a totally different expression: "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you." the second quotation from the memoirs which dr. westcott passes over is that in dial. , compared with luke xxii. , , on the agony in the garden, which we have already examined,( ) and found at variance with our gospel, and without the peculiar and distinctive expressions of the latter. we now come to the seven passages which canon westcott admits to be professed quotations from the memoirs, and in which "it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact words of the gospels which he used." the first of these is a passage in the dialogue, part of which has already been discussed in connection with the fire in jordan and the voice at the baptism, and found to be from a source different from our synoptics.( ) justin says: "for even he, the devil, at the time when he also (jesus) went up from the river jordan when the voice { } said to him: 'thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee,' is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to him and tempted him even so far as saying to him: 'worship me;' and christ answered him [---greek---], 'get thee behind me, satan' [---greek---], 'thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.'"( ) this passage is compared with the account of the temptation in matt iv. , : "and he said unto him, all these things will i give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. . then saith jesus unto him [---greek---], get thee hence, satan [--greek--]: it is written, thou shalt worship," &c all the oldest codices, it should be stated, omit the [--greek--], as we have done, but cod. d. (bezæ) and a few others of infirm authority, insert these two words. canon westcott, however, justly admits them to be "probably only a very early interpolation."( ) we have no reason whatever for supposing that they existed in matthew during justin's time. the oldest codices omit the whole phrase from the parallel passage, luke iv. , but cod. a. is an exception, and reads: [--greek--]. the best modern editions, however, reject this as a mere recent addition to luke. a comparison of the first and third gospels with justin clearly shows that the gospel which he used followed the former more closely than luke. matthew makes the climax of the temptation { } the view of all the kingdoms of the world, and the offer to give them to jesus if he will fall down and worship satan. luke, on the contrary, makes the final temptation the suggestion to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. justin's gospel, as the words, "so far as saying to him" [--greek--], &c., clearly indicate, had the same climax as matthew. now the following points must be observed. justin makes the words of satan, "worship me" [--greek--], a distinct quotation; the gospel makes satan offer all that he has shown "if thou wilt fall down and worship me" [--greek--]. then justin's quotation proceeds: "and christ answered him" [--greek--]; whilst matthew has, "then jesus saith to him" [---greek---], which is a marked variation.( ) the[--greek--] of justin, as we have already said, is not found in any of the older codices of matthew. then the words: "it is written," which form part of the reply of jesus in our gospels, are omitted in justin's; but we must add that, in dial , in again referring to the temptation, he adds, "it is written." still, in that passage he also omits the whole phrase, "get thee behind me, satan," and commences: "for he answered him: it is written, thou shalt worship," &c. we must, however, again point out the most important fact, that this account of the temptation is directly connected with another which is foreign to our gospels. the devil is said to come at the time jesus went up out of the jordan and the voice said to him: "thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee"--words which do not occur at all in our gospels, and which are again bound up with the incident of the fire in jordan. it is altogether { } unreasonable to assert that justin could have referred the fact which he proceeds to quote from the memoirs, to the time those words were uttered, if they were not to be found in the same memoirs. the one incident was most certainly not derived from our gospels, inasmuch as they do not contain it, and there are the very strongest reasons for asserting that justin derived the account of the temptation from a source which contained the other. under these circumstances, every variation is an indication, and those which we have pointed out are not accidental, but clearly exclude the assertion that the quotation is from our gospels. the second of the seven passages of canon westcott is one of those from the sermon on the mount, dial. , compared with matt v. , adduced by de wette, which we have already considered.( ) with the exception of the opening words, [--greek--], the two sentences agree, but this is no proof that justin derived the passage from matthew; while on the contrary, the persistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the sermon on the mount, both in order and language, forces upon us the conviction that he derived the whole from a source different from our gospels. the third passage of dr. westcott is that regarding the sign of jonas the prophet, matt, xii. , compared with dial. , which was the second instance adduced by tischendorf we have already examined it,( ) and found that it presents distinct variations from our first synoptic, both linguistically and otherwise, and that many reasons lead to the conclusion that it was quoted from a gospel different from ours. the fourth of canon westcott's quotations is the { } following, to part of which we have already had occasion to refer:(l) "for which reason our christ declared on earth to those who asserted that elias must come before christ: elias indeed shall come [--greek--] and shall restore all things: but i say unto you that elias is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him [--greek--] whatsoever they listed. and it is written that then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of john the baptist."( ) the express quotation" in this passage, which is compared with matt. xvii. -- , is limited by canon "westcott to the last short sentence( ) corresponding with matt xvii. , and he points out that credner admits that it must have been taken from matthew. it is quite true that credner considers that if any passage of justin's quotations proves a necessary connection between justin's gospels and the gospel according to matthew, it is this sentence: "and it is written that then the disciples, &c." he explains his reason for this opinion as follows: "these words can only be derived from our matthew, with which they literally agree; for it is thoroughly improbable that a remark of so special a description could have been made by two different and independent individuals so completely alike."( ) we totally differ from this argument, { } which is singularly opposed to credner's usual clear and thoughtful mode of reasoning.( ) no doubt if such gospels could be considered to be absolutely distinct and independent works, deriving all their matter from individual and separate observation of the occurrences narrated by their authors and personal report of the discourses given, there might be greater force in the argument, although even in that case it would have been far from conclusive here, inasmuch as the observation we are considering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to complete the episode, and it might well have been made in the same terms by separate reporters. the fact is, however, that the numerous gospels current in the early church cannot have been, and our synoptic gospels most certainly are not, independent works, but are based upon earlier evangelical writings no longer extant, and have borrowed from each other. the gospels did not originate full fledged as we now have them, but are the result of many revisions of previously existing materials. critics may differ as to the relative ages and order of the synoptics, but almost all are agreed that in one order or another they are dependent on each other, and on older forms of the gospel. now such an expression as matt. xvii. in some early record of the discourse might have been transferred to a dozen of other christian writings. ewald assigns the passage to the oldest gospel, matthew in its present form being fifth in descent.( ) our three canonical gospels are filled with instances in which expressions still more individual are repeated, and these show that such phrases cannot be limited to { } one gospel, but, if confined in the first instance to one original source, may have been transferred to many subsequent evangelical works. take, for instance, a passage in matt. vii. , : ".... the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes."( ) mark i. has the very same passage,( ) with the mere omission of "the multitudes" [--greek--], which does not in the least affect the argument; and luke iv. : "and they were astonished at his teaching: for his word was power."( ) although the author of the third gospel somewhat alters the language, it is clear that he follows the same original, and retains it in the same context as the second gospel. now the occurrence of such a passage as this in one of the fathers, if either the first or second gospels were lost, would, on credner's grounds, be attributed undoubtedly to the survivor, although in reality derived from the gospel no longer extant, which likewise contained it. another example may be pointed out in matt. xiii. : "all these things spake jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and _without a parable spake he not unto them_," compared with mark iv. , , "and with many such parables spake he the word unto them.... and without a parable spake he not unto them." the part of this very individual remark which we have italicised is literally the same in both gospels, as a personal comment at the end of the parable of the grain of mustard seed. then, for instance, in the account { } of the sleep of the three disciples during the agony in the garden (matt. xxvi. , mark xiv. ), the expression "and he found them asleep, _for their eyes were heavy_," which is equally individual, is literally the same in the first two gospels. another special remark of a similar kind regarding the rich young man: "he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions," is found both in matt. xix. and mark x. . such examples( ) might be multiplied, and they show that the occurrence of passages of the most individual character cannot, in justin's time, be limited to any single gospel. now the verse we are discussing, matt xvii. , in all probability, as ewald supposes, occurred in one or more of the older forms of the gospel from which our synoptics and many other similar works derived their matter, and nothing is more likely than that the gospel according to the hebrews, which in many respects was nearly related to matthew, may have contained it. at any rate we have shown that such sayings cannot, however apparently individual, be considered evidence of the use of a particular gospel simply because it happens to be the only one now extant which contains it. credner, however, whilst expressing the opinion which we have quoted likewise adds his belief that by the expression [--greek--], justin seems expressly to indicate that this sentence is taken from a different work from what precedes it, and he has proved that the preceding part of the quotation was not derived from our gospels.( ) we cannot, however, coincide with this opinion either. it seems to us that the expression "and { } it is written" simply was made use of by justin to show that the identification of elias with john the baptist is not his, but was the impression conveyed at the time by jesus to his disciples. now the whole narrative of the baptism of john in justin bears characteristic marks of being from a gospel different from ours,( ) and in the first part of this very quotation we find distinct variation. justin first affirms that jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that elias should also come [--greek--], and then further on he gives the actual words of jesus: [--greek--], which we have before us, whilst in matthew the words are: [--greek--] and there is no ms. which reads [--greek--] for [--greek--], and yet, as credner remarks, the whole force of the quotation rests upon the word, and justin is persistent in his variation from the text of our first synoptic. it is unreasonable to say that justin quotes loosely the important part of his passage, and then about a few words at the close pretends to be so particularly careful. considering all the facts of the case, we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source different from our gospels.( ) another point, however, must be noted. dr. westcott claims this passage as an express quotation from the memoirs, apparently for no other reason than that the few words happen to agree with matt. xvii. , and that he wishes to identify the memoirs with our gospels. justin, however, does not once mention the memoirs in this chapter; it follows, therefore, that canon westcott who is so exceedingly strict in his limitation of express quotations, assumes that all quotations of christian history and words of jesus in justin are to be considered { } as derived from the memoirs whether they be mentioned by name or not. we have already seen that amongst these there are not only quotations differing from the gospels, and contradicting them, but others which have no parallels at all in them. the fifth of dr. westcott's express quotations occurs in dial. , where justin says: "for when he (jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross he said: 'father, into thy hands i commend my spirit,' as i have also learned from the memoirs." this short sentence agrees with luke xxiii. , it is true, but as we have already shown, justin's whole account of the crucifixion differs so materially from that in our gospels that it cannot have been derived from them. we see this forcibly in examining the sixth of canon westcott's quotations, which is likewise connected with the crucifixion. "for they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the memoirs of his apostles: he declared himself the son of god: (let him) come down, let him walk about: let god save him."( ) we have ourselves already quoted and discussed this passage,( ) and need not further examine it here. canon westcott has nothing better to say regarding this quotation, in an examination of the accuracy of parallel passages, than this: "these exact words do not occur in our gospels, but we do find there others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference "!( ) when criticism descends to language like this, the case is indeed desperate. it is clear that, as canon westcott admits, the words are expressly declared to be a { } quotation from the memoirs of the apostles, but they do not exist in our gospels, and consequently our gospels are not identical with the memoirs. canon westcott refers to the taunts in matthew, and then with commendable candour he concludes his examination of the quotation with the following words: "no manuscript or father (so far as we know) has preserved any reading of the passage more closely resembling justin's quotation; and if it appear not to be deducible from our gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source must remain concealed."( ) we need only add that it is futile to talk of making "due allowance" for the object which justin had in view. his immediate object was accurate quotation, and no allowance can account for such variation in language and thought as is presented in this passage. that this passage, though a professed quotation from the memoirs, is not taken from our gospels is certain both from its own variations and the differences in other parts of justin's account of the crucifixion, an event whose solemnity and importance might well be expected to secure reverential accuracy. it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that justin's memoirs of the apostles were not identical with our gospels, and the systematic variation of his quotations thus receives its natural and reasonable explanation. the seventh and last of dr. westcott's express quotations is, as he states, "more remarkable." we subjoin the passage in contrast with the parallel texts of the first and third gospels. { } [--greek--] it is apparent that justin's quotation differs very materially from our gospels in language, in construction, and in meaning. these variations, however, acquire very remarkable confirmation and significance from the fact that justin in two other places( ) quotes the latter and larger part of the passage from [--greek--] in precisely the same way, with the sole exception that, in both of these quotations, he uses the aorist [--greek--] instead of [--greek--]. this threefold repetition in the same peculiar form clearly stamps the passage as being a literal { } quotation from his gospel, and the one exception to the verbal agreement of the three passages, in the substitution of the present for the aorist in the dialogue, does not in the least remove or lessen the fundamental variation of the passage from our gospel. as the [--greek--] is twice repeated it was probably the reading of his text. now it is well known that the peculiar form of the quotation in justin occurred in what came to be considered heretical gospels, and constituted the basis of important gnostic doctrines.( ) canon westcott speaks of the use of this passage by the fathers in agreement with justin in a manner which, unintentionally we have no doubt, absolutely misrepresents important facts. he says: "the transposition of the words still remains; and how little weight can be attached to that will appear upon an examination of the various forms in which the text is quoted by fathers like origen, irenæus and epiphanius, who admitted our gospels exclusively. it occurs in them as will be seen from the table of readings[--greek--] with almost every possible variation. irenæus in the course of one chapter quotes the verse first as it stands in the canonical text; then in the same order, but with the last clause like justin's; and once again altogether as he has given it. epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times in the same order as justin, and four times as it stands in the gospels."[--greek--] now in the chapter to which reference is made in this sentence irenæus commences by stating that the lord had declared: "nemo cognoscit filium nisi pater; neque { } patrem quis cognoscit nisi films, et cui voluerit filius revelare,"( ) as he says, "thus matthew has set it down and luke similarly, and mark the very same."( ) he goes on to state, however, that those who would be wiser than the apostles write this verse as follows: "nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius; nee filium nisi pater, et cui voluerit filius revelare." and he explains: "they interpret it as though the true god was known to no man before the coming of our lord; and that god who was announced by the prophets they affirm not to be the father of christ."( ) now in this passage we have the [--greek--] of justin in the 'cognovit,' in contradistinction to the 'cognoscit' of the gospel, and his transposition of order as not by any possibility an accidental thing, but as the distinct basis of doctrines. irenæus goes on to argue that no one can know the father unless through the word of god, that is through the son, and this is why he said: "'nemo cognoscit patrem nisi filius; neque filium nisi pater, et quibuscunque filius reve-laverit.' thus teaching that he himself also is the father, as indeed he is, in order that we may not receive any other father except him who is revealed by the son."( ) in this third quotation irenseus alters the [--greek--] into [--greek--], but retains the form, for the rest, of the gnostics and of justin, and his aim apparently is to show that adopting his present tense instead of the aorist the transposition { } of words is of no importance. a fourth time, however, in the same chapter, which in fact is wholly dedicated to this passage and to the doctrines based upon it, irenæus quotes the saying: "nemo cognoscit filium nisi pater; neque patrem nisi filius, et quibuscunque filius reve-laverit."( ) here the language and order of the gospel are followed with the exception that 'cui voluerit revelare' is altered to the 'quibuscunque revelaverit' of justin; and that this is intentional is made clear by the continuation: "for _revelaverit_ was said not with reference to the future alone,"( ( &c. now in this chapter we learn very clearly that, although the canonical gospels by the express declaration of irenæus had their present reading of the passage before us, other gospels of considerable authority even in his time had the form of justin, for again in a fifth passage he quotes the opening words: "he who was known, therefore, was not different from him who declared: 'no one knoweth the father,' but one and the same."( ) with the usual alteration of the verb to the present tense, irenæus in this and in one of the other quotations of this passage just cited gives some authority to the transposition of the words "father" and "son," although the reading was opposed to the gospels, but he invariably adheres to [--greek--] and condemns [--greek--], the reading maintained by those who in the estimation of irenæus "would be wiser than the apostles." elsewhere, descanting on { } the passages of scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the father was unknown before the advent of christ, irenseus, after accusing them of garbling passages of scripture,( ) goes on to say of the marcosians and others: "besides these, they adduce a countless number of apocryphal and spurious works which they themselves have forged to the bewilderment of the foolish, and of those who are not versed in the scriptures of truth."( ) he also points out passages occurring in our gospels to which they give a peculiar interpretation and, amongst these, that quoted by justin. he says: "but they adduce as the highest testimony, and as it were the crown of their system, the following passage.... 'all things were delivered to me by my father, and no one knew [--greek--] the father but the son, and the son but the father, and he to whomsoever [--greek--] the son shall reveal [--greek--].'( ) in these words they assert that he clearly demonstrated that the father of truth whom they have invented was known to no one before his coming; and they desire to interpret the words as though the maker and creator had been known to all, and the lord spoke these words regarding the father unknown to all, whom they proclaim."( ) here we have the exact quotation twice made by justin, with the [--greek--] and the same order, set { } forth as the reading of the gospels of the marcosians and other sects, and the highest testimony to their system. it is almost impossible that justin could have altered the passage by an error of memory to this precise form, and it must be regarded as the reading of his memoirs.( ) the evidence of irenæus is clear: the gospels had the reading which we now find in them, but apocryphal gospels on the other hand had that which we find twice quoted by justin, and the passage was as it were the text upon which a large sect of the early church based its most fundamental doctrine. the [--greek--] is invariably repudiated, but the transposition of the words "father" and "son" was apparently admitted to a certain extent, although the authority for this was not derived from the gospels recognized by the church which contained the contrary order. we must briefly refer to the use of this passage by clement of alexandria. he quotes portions of the text eight times, and although with some variation of terms he invariably follows the order of the gospels. six times he makes use of the aorist [--greek--],( ) once of [--greek--],( ) and once of [--greek--].( ) he only once quotes the whole passage,( ) but on this occasion, as well as six others in which he only quotes the latter part of the sentence,( ) he omits [--greek--], and reads "and he to whom the son shall reveal," thus supporting the [--greek--] { } of justin. twice he has "god" instead of "father,"( ) and once he substitutes [--greek--] for [--greek--].( ) it is evident from the loose and fragmentary way in which clement interweaves the passage with his text, that he is more concerned with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the quotation, but the result of his evidence is that he never departs from the gospel order of "father" and "son," although he frequently makes use of [--greek--] and also employs [--greek--] in agreement with justin and, therefore, he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to, though always presenting material difference from, the reading of justin. epiphanius refers to this passage no less than ten times,( ) but he only quotes it fully five times, and upon each of these occasions with variations. of the five times to which we refer, he thrice follows the order of the gospels,( ) as he does likewise in another place where he does not complete the sentence.( ) on the remaining two occasions he adopts the same order as justin, with variations from his reading, however, to which we shall presently refer;( ) and where he only partially quotes he follows the same order on other three occasions,( ) and in one other place the quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to distinguish the order.( ) now in all of these ten quotations, with one exception, epiphanius substitutes [--greek--] for [--greek--] at the commencement of the { } passage in matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the second clause as in that gospel, and on these occasions he twice makes use of [--greek--]( ) and once of [--greek--].( ) he once uses [--greek--] with the same order as justin, but does not complete the sentence.( ) each time he completes the quotation, he uses [--greek--] with the gospel, and [--greek--] with justin,( ) but only once out of the five complete quotations does he insert [--greek--] in the concluding phrase. it is evident from this examination, which we must not carry further, that epiphanius never verbally agrees with the gospel in his quotation of this passage and never verbally with justin, but mainly follows a version different from both. it must be remembered, however, that he is writing against various heresies, and it does not seem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the passage current amongst those sects. in his work against marcion, tertullian says: "with regard to the father, however, that he was never seen, the gospel which is common to us will testify, as it was said by christ: nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius,"( ) but elsewhere he translates "nemo scit,"( ) evidently not fully appreciating the difference of [--greek--].( ) the passage in mar-cion's gospel reads like justin's: [--greek--].( ) the use of [--greek--] as applied to the father and [--greek--] as regards the son in this passage is suggestive. origen { } almost invariably uses [--greek--], sometimes adopting the order of the gospels and sometimes that of justin, and always employing [--greek--].( ) the clementine homilies always read [--greek--], and always follow the same order as justin, presenting other and persistent variations from the form in the gospels. [--greek--] this reading occurs four times. the clementine recognitions have the aorist with the order of the gospels.( ) there only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to complete the whole of dr. westcott's argument regarding this passage. he continues and concludes thus: "if, indeed, justin's quotations were made from memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if we suppose that he copied the passage directly from a manuscript, there is no difficulty in believing that he found it so written in a manuscript of the canonical st. matthew, since the variation is excluded by no internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin is easily explicable."( ) it will be observed that canon westcott does not attempt any argument, but simply confines himself to suppositions. if such explanations were only valid, there could be no difficulty in believing anything, and every embarrassing circumstance would indeed be easily explicable. the facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows: justin deliberately and expressly quotes from his gospel, himself calling it "gospel," be it observed, a { } passage whose nearest parallel in our gospels is matt. xi. . this quotation presents material variations from our canonical gospel both in form and language. the larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a different work, written years before, in precisely the same words as the third quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist instead of the present tense of the verb. no ms. of our gospel extant approximates to the reading in justin, and we are expressly told by irenæus that the present reading of our matthew was that existing in his day. on the other hand, irenæus states with equal distinctness that gospels used by gnostic sects had the reading of justin, and that the passage was "the crown of their system," and one upon whose testimony they based their leading doctrines. here, then, is the clear statement that justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the gospels, and agrees with that of other gospels. the variations occurring in the numerous quotations of the same passage by the fathers, which we have analysed, show that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that there must have been various readings of considerable authority then current. it has been conjectured with much probability that the form in which justin quotes the passage twice in his apology may have been the reading of older gospels, and that it was gradually altered by the church to the form in which we now have it, for dogmatic reasons, when gnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the prevailing interpretation.( ) be this as it may, justin's gospel clearly had a reading different from ours, but in unison with { } that known to exist in other gospels, and this express quotation only adds additional proof to the mass of evidence already adduced that the memoirs of the apostles were not our canonical gospels.( ) we have already occupied so much space even with this cursory examination of justin's quotations, that we must pass over in silence passages which he quotes from the memoirs with variations from the parallels in our gospels which are also found in the clementine homilies and other works emanating from circles in which other gospels than ours were used. we shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of jesus expressly quoted by justin, which are altogether unknown to our gospels. justin says: "for the things which he foretold would take place in his name, these we see actually coming to pass in our sight. for he said: 'many shall come,' &c., &c.,( ) and 'there shall be schisms and heresies,'( ) and 'beware of false prophets,'( ) &c, and 'many false christs and false apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.'"( ) neither of the two prophecies here quoted are to be found anywhere in our gospels, and to the second of them justin repeatedly refers. he says in one place that jesus "foretold that in the interval of his coming, as i previously said,( ) heresies and false prophets would arise in his name."( ) it is admitted that these { } prophecies are foreign to our gospels.( ) it is very probable that the apostle paul refers to the prophecy, "there shall be schisms and heresies" in cor. xi. - , where it is said, ".... i hear that schisms exist amongst you; and i partly believe it. for there must also be heresies amongst you," &c. [--greek--].( ) we find also, elsewhere, traces both of this saying and that which accompanies it. in the clementine homilies, peter is represented as stating, "for there shall be, as the lord said, _false apostles_, false prophets, _heresies_, desires for supremacy," &c. [--greek--]. we are likewise reminded of the passage in the epistle attributed to the roman clement, xliv.: "our apostles knew through our lord jesus christ that there would be contention regarding the dignity of the episcopate."( ) in our gospel there is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false apostles once mentioned, the reference being solely to "false christs" and "false prophets." the recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar expression "false apostles" is very striking,( ) and the evidence for the passage as a saying of jesus is important. hegesippus, after enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers, continues: "from these sprang the false christs, false prophets, _false apostles_, who divided the { } union of the church by corrupting doctrines concerning god and concerning his christ."( ) it will be remembered that hegesippus made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, and the clementine literature points to the same source. in the apostolic constitutions we read: "for these are false christs and false prophets, _and false apostles_, deceivers, and corrupters," &c.,( ) and in the clementine recognitions the apostle peter is represented as saying that the devil, after the temptation, terrified by the final answer of jesus, "hastened immediately to send forth into this world false prophets, and _false apostles_, and false teachers, who should speak in the name of christ indeed, but should perform the will of the demon."( ) justin's whole system forbids our recognizing in these two passages mere tradition, and we must hold that we have here quotations from a gospel different from ours. elsewhere, justin says: "out of which (affliction and fiery trial of the devil) again jesus, the son of god, promised to deliver us, and to put on us prepared garments, if we do his commandments, and he is proclaimed as having provided an eternal kingdom for us."( ) this promise is nowhere found in our gospel.( ) immediately following the passage (k and ) which we have discussed( ) as repeated in the dialogue: "many { } shall say to me, &c, &c, and i will say to them, depart from me," justin continues: "and in other words by which he will condemn those who are unworthy to be saved, he said that he will say: begone into the darkness without, which the father hath prepared for satan and his angels."( ) the nearest parallel to this is in matt. xxv. : "then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels." [--greek--] it is apparent that justin's quotation differs very widely from the reading of our gospel. the same reading, with the exception of a single word, is found in the clementine homilies (xix. ), that is to say, that "devil" is substituted for "satan," and this variation is not important. the agreement of the rest, on the other hand, seems to establish the conclusion that the quotation is from a written gospel different from ours,( ) and here we have further strong indications of justin's use of the ebionite gospel. another of the sayings of jesus which are foreign to our gospels is one in reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin, of whom justin says: "wherefore also our lord jesus christ said: in whatsoever things i may find you, in these i shall also judge you."( ) [--greek--] { } "[--greek--]") a similar expression is used by some of the fathers, and in some cases is ascribed to the prophets.( ) clement of alexandria has quoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source. [--greek--].( ) grabe was of opinion that justin derived the passage from the gospel according to the hebrews,( ) an opinion shared by the greater number of modern critics, and which we are prepared to accept from many previous instances of agreement. even the warmest asserters of the theory that the memoirs are identical with our gospels are obliged to admit that this saying of jesus is not contained in them, and that it must have been derived from an extra-canonical source.( ) other passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out, but we have already devoted too much space to justin's quotations, and must hasten to a conclusion. there is one point, however, to which we must refer. we have more than once alluded to the fact that, unless in one place, justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the memoirs of the apostles. the exception to which we referred is the following. justin says: "the statement also that he (jesus) changed the name of peter, one of the apostles, and that this is also written in _his_ memoirs as having been done, { } together with the fact that he also changed the name of other two brothers, who were sons of zebedee, to boanerges, that is, sons of thunder," &c.( ) according to the usual language of justin, and upon strictly critical grounds, the [--greek--] in this passage must be referred to peter; and justin, therefore, seems to ascribe the memoirs to that apostle, and to speak of a gospel of peter. some critics maintain that the [--greek--] does not refer to peter, but to jesus, or, more probably still, that it should be amended to [--greek--], and apply to the apostles.( ) the great majority, however, are forced to admit the reference of the memoirs to peter, although they explain it, as we shall see, in different ways. it is argued by some that this expression is used when justin is alluding to the change of name not only of peter but of the sons of zebedee, the narrative of which is only found in the gospel according to mark. now mark was held by many of the fathers to have been the mere mouthpiece of peter, and to have written at his dictation;( ) so that, in fact, in calling the second gospel by the name of the apostle peter, they argue, justin merely adopted the tradition current in the early church, and referred to the { } gospel now known as the gospel according to mark.( ) it must be evident, however, that after admitting that justin speaks of the memoirs of peter," it is indeed hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact that the mention of the sons of zebedee being surnamed boanerges is only recorded in mark iii. , and not in the other canonical gospels, that therefore the "memoirs of peter" and our gospel according to mark are one and the same. we shall, hereafter, in examining the testimony of papias, see that the gospel according to mark, of which the bishop of hierapolis speaks, was not our canonical mark at all. it would be very singular indeed on this hypothesis that justin should not have quoted a single passage from the only gospel whose author he names, and the number of times he seems to quote from a petrine gospel, which was quite different from mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here refer to our second gospel. it is maintained, therefore, by numerous other critics that justin refers to a gospel according to peter, or according to the hebrews, and not to mark.( ) we learn from eusebius that serapion, who became bishop of antioch about a.d. , composed a book on { } the "gospel according to peter" [--greek--], which he found in circulation in his diocese. at first serapion had permitted the use of this gospel, as it evidently was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a work favouring docetic views, and containing many things superadded to the doctrine of the saviour.( ) origen likewise makes mention of the gospel according to peter [--greek--] as agreeing with the tradition of the hebrews.( ) but its relationship to the gospel according to the hebrews becomes more clear when theodoret states that the nazarenes made use of the gospel according to peter,( ) for we know by the testimony of the fathers generally that the nazarene gospel was that commonly called the gospel according to the hebrews [--greek--]. the same gospel was in use amongst the ebionites, and in fact, as almost all critics are agreed, the gospel according to the hebrews, under various names, such as the gospel according to peter, according to the apostles, the nazarenes, ebionites, egyptians, &c, with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early church.( ) a quotation occurs in the { } so-called epistle of ignatius to the smyrnaeans, to which we have already referred, which is said by origen to be in the work called the doctrine of peter(l) [--greek--], but jerome states that it is taken from the hebrew gospel of the nazarenes.( ) delitzsch finds traces of the gospel according to the hebrews before a.d. in the talmud.( ) eusebius( ) informs us that papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the lord of many sins which was contained in the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) the same writer likewise states that hegesippus, who came to rome and commenced his public career under anicetus, quoted from the same gospel.( ) the evidence of this "ancient and apostolic man is very important, for although he evidently attaches great value to tradition, does not seem to know of any canonical scriptures of the new testament { } and, like justin, apparently rejected the apostle paul,( ) he still regarded the gospel according to the hebrews with respect, and probably made exclusive use of it. the best critics consider that this gospel was the evangelical work used by the author of the clementine homilies.( ) cerinthus and carpocrates made use of a form of it,( ) and there is good reason to suppose that tatian, like his master justin, used the same gospel: indeed his "diatessaron," we are told, was by some called the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) clement of alexandria quotes it as an authority, with quite the same respect as the other gospels. he says: "so also in the gospel according to the hebrews: 'he who wonders shall reign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'"( ) a form of this gospel, "according to the egyptians," is quoted in the second epistle of pseudo-clement of rome, as we are informed by the alexandrian { } clement, who likewise quotes the same passage.( ) origen frequently made use of the gospel according to the hebrews,( ) and that it long enjoyed great consideration in the church is proved by the fact that theodoret found it in circulation not only among heretics, but also amongst orthodox christian communities;( ) and even in the fourth century eusebius records doubts as to the rank of this gospel amongst christian books, speaking of it under the second class in which some reckoned the apocalypse of john.( ) later still jerome translated it;( ) whilst nicephorus inserts it, in his stichometry, not amongst the apocrypha, but amongst the antilegomena, or merely doubtful books of the new testament, along with the apocalypse of john.( ) eusebius bears testimony to the value attached to it by the jewish christians,( ) and indeed he says of the ebionites that, "making use only of the gospel according to the hebrews, they took little account of the rest."( ) in such repute was this gospel amongst the earliest christian communities, that it was generally believed to be the original of the greek gospel of matthew. irenæus states that the ebionites used solely the gospel according to matthew and reject the apostle paul, asserting that he was an apostate from the law.( ) we know from statements { } regarding the ebionites( ) that this gospel could not have been our gospel according to matthew, and besides, both clement( ) of alexandria and origen( ) call it the gospel according to the hebrews. eusebius, however, still more clearly identifies it, as we have seen above. repeating the statements of irenæus, he says: "these indeed (the ebionites) thought that all the epistles of the apostle (paul) should be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only of the gospel according to the hebrews, they took little account of the rest."( ) epiphanius calls both the single gospel of the ebionites and of the nazarenes the "gospel according to the hebrews," and also the gospel according to matthew,( ) as does also theodoret( ) jerome translated the gospel according to the hebrews both into greek and latin,( ) and it is clear that his belief was that this gospel, a copy of which he found in the library collected at cæsarea by the martyr pamphilus (f ), was the hebrew original of matthew; and in support of this view he points out that it did not follow the version of the lxx. in its quotations from the old testament, but quoted directly from the hebrew.( ) an attempt has been made to argue { } that, later, jerome became doubtful of this view, but it seems to us that this is not the case, and certainly jerome in his subsequent writings states that it was generally held to be the original of matthew.( ) that this gospel was not identical with the greek matthew is evident both from the quotations of jerome and others, and also from the fact that jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice. if the greek gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of course there could not have been inducement to make another.( ) as we shall hereafter see, the belief was universal in the early church that matthew wrote his gospel in hebrew. attempts have been made to argue that the gospel according to the hebrews was first written in greek and then translated into hebrew,( ) but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and arbitrary,( ) and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the fathers. { } it is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the question of the exact relation of our canonical gospel according to matthew to the gospel according to the hebrews. it is sufficient for us to point out that we meet with the latter before matthew's gospel, and that the general opinion of the early church was that it was the original of the canonical gospel this opinion, as schwegler( ) remarks, is supported by the fact that tradition assigns the origin of both gospels to palestine, and that both were intended for jewish christians and exclusively used by them. that the two works, however originally related, had by subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still amidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be doubted, and in addition to evidence already cited we may point out that in the stichometry of nicephorus, the gospel according to matthew is said to have [--greek--], whilst that according to the hebrews has only .( ) whether this gospel formed one of the writings of the [--greek--] of luke it is not our purpose to inquire, but enough has been said to prove that it was one of the most ancient( ) { } and most valued evangelical works, and to show the probability that justin martyr, a jewish christian living amongst those who are known to have made exclusive use of this gospel, may well, like his contemporary hegesippus, have used the gospel according to the hebrews; and this probability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by the fact that many of his quotations agree with passages which we know to have been contained in it; whilst, on the other hand, almost all differ from our gospels, presenting generally, however, a greater affinity to the gospel according to matthew, as we might expect, than to the other two. it is clear that the title "gospel according to the hebrews" cannot have been its actual superscription, but merely was a name descriptive of the readers for whom it was prepared or amongst whom it chiefly circulated, and it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than "the gospel" [--greek--], to which were added the different designations under which we find it known amongst different communities.( ) we have already seen that justin speaks of "the gospel" and seems to refer to the "memoirs of peter," both distinguishing appellations of this gospel, but there is another of the names borne by the "gospel according to the hebrews," which singularly recalls the "memoirs of the apostles," by which justin prefers to call his evangelical work. it was called the "gospel according to the apostles"( ) { } [--greek--], and, in short, comparing justin's memoirs with this gospel, we find at once similarity of contents and even of name.( ) it is not necessary, however, for) the purposes of this examination to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific gospel now no longer extant justin employed. we have shown that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name. on the other hand it has been made evident that there were other gospels, now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. we have seen that justin's memoirs of the apostles contained facts of gospel history unknown to our gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works and notably in the gospel according to the hebrews; that they further contained matter contradictory to our gospels, and sayings of jesus not contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar passages in our gospels. no theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that justin did not make use of our gospels, but quoted from another source. in no case can the testimony of justin afford the requisite support to the gospels as records of miracles and of a divine revelation. { } chapter iv. hegesippus--papias of hierapolis. we now turn to hegesippus, one of the contemporaries of justin, and, like him, a palestinian jewish christian. most of our information regarding him is derived from eusebius, who fortunately gives rather copious extracts from his writings. hegesippus was born in palestine, of jewish parents,(l) and in all probability belonged to the primitive community of jerusalem.( ) in order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the church, he travelled widely and came to rome when anicetus was bishop. subsequently he wrote a work of historical memoirs, [--greek--], in five books, and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of christianity. this work is lost, but portions have been preserved to us by eusebius, and one other fragment is also extant. it must have been, in part at least, written after the succession of eleutherus to the roman bishopric (a.d. - ), as that event is mentioned in the book itself, and his testimony is allowed by all critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the second century.( ) { } the testimony of hegesippus is of great value, not only as that of a man born near the primitive christian tradition, but also as that of an intelligent traveller amongst many christian communities. eusebius evidently held him in high estimation as recording the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching in the most simple style of composition,( ) and as a writer of authority who was "contemporary with the first successors of the apostles"( ) [--greek--]. any indications, therefore, which we may derive from information regarding him, and from the fragments of his writings which survive, must be of peculiar importance for our inquiry. as might have been expected from a convert from judaism( ) [--greek--], we find in hegesippus manifest evidences of general tendency to the jewish side of christianity. for him, "james, the brother of the lord," was the chief of the apostles, and he states that he had received the government of the church after the death of jesus.( ) the account which he gives of him is remarkable. "he was holy from his mothers womb. he drank neither wine nor strong drink, nor ate he any living thing. a razor never went upon his head, he anointed not himself with { } oil, and did not use a bath. he alone was allowed to enter into the holies. for he did not wear woollen garments, but linen. and he alone entered into the sanctuary and was wont to be found upon his knees seeking forgiveness on behalf of the people; so that his knees became hard like a camel's, through his constant kneeling in supplication to god, and asking for forgiveness for the people. in consequence of his exceeding great righteousness he was called righteous and 'oblias,' that is, protector of the people and righteousness, as the prophets declare concerning him,"( ) and so on. throughout the whole of his account of james, hegesippus describes him as a mere jew, and as frequenting the temple, and even entering the holy of holies as a jewish high priest. whether the account be apocryphal or not is of little consequence here; it is clear that hegesippus sees no incongruity in it, and that the difference between the jew and the christian was extremely small. the head of the christian community could assume all the duties of the jewish high-priest,( ) and his christian doctrines did not offend more than a small party amongst the jews.( ) we are not, therefore, surprised to find that his rule [--greek--] of orthodoxy in the christian communities { } which he visited, was "the law, the prophets, and the lord." speaking of the result of his observations during his travels, and of the succession of bishops in rome, he says: "the corinthian church has continued in the true faith until primus, now bishop of corinth. i conversed with him on my voyage to rome, and stayed many days with the corinthians, during which time we were refreshed together with true doctrine. arrived in rome i composed the succession until anicetus, whose deacon was eleutherus. after anicetus succeeded soter, and afterwards eleutherus. but with every succession, and in every city, that prevails which the law, and the prophets, and the lord enjoin."( ) the test of true doctrine [--greek--] with hegesippus as with justin, therefore, is no new testament canon, which does not yet exist for him, but the old testament, the only holy scriptures which he acknowledges, and the words of the lord himself,( ) which, as in the case of jewish christians like justin, were held to be established by, and in direct conformity with, the old testament. he carefully transmits the unerring tradition of apostolic preaching [--greek--], but he apparently knows nothing of any canonical series even of apostolic epistles. the care with which eusebius searches for information regarding the books of the new testament in early writers, and his anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their composition and authenticity, render his silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct { } utterance when speaking of such a man as hegesippus.( ) now, while eusebius does not mention that hegesippus refers to any of our canonical gospels or epistles, he very distinctly states that he made use in his writings of the "gospel according to the hebrews" [--greek--]. it may be well, however, to give his remarks in a consecutive form. "he sets forth some matters from the gospel according to the hebrews and the syriac, and particularly from the hebrew language, showing that he was a convert from among the hebrews, and other things he records as from unwritten jewish tradition. and not only he, but also irenæus, and the whole body of the ancients, called the proverbs of solomon: all-virtuous wisdom. and regarding the so-called apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his own time by certain heretics."( ) it is certain that eusebius, who quotes with so much care the testimony of papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, regarding the composition of the first two gospels, would not have neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of hegesippus, for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with any opportunity, and there can be no doubt that he found no facts concerning the origin and authorship of our gospels in his writings. it is, on the other hand, reasonable to infer that hegesippus exclusively made use of the { } gospel according to the hebrews, together with unwritten tradition.( ) in the passage regarding the gospel according to the hebrews, as even lardner( ) conjectures, the text of eusebius is in all probability confused, and he doubtless said what jerome later found to be the fact, that "the gospel according to the hebrews is written in the chaldaic and syriac (or syro-chaldaic) language, but with hebrew characters."( ) it is in this sense that rufinus translates it. it may not be inappropriate to point out that fragments of the gospel according to the hebrews, which have been preserved, show the same tendency to give some pre-eminence to james amongst the apostles which we observe in hegesippus.( ) it has been argued by a few that the words, "and regarding the so-called apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his own times by certain heretics," are contradictory to his attributing authority to the gospel according to the hebrews, or at least that they indicate some distinction amongst christians between recognized and apocryphal works. the apocryphal works referred to, however, are clearly old testament apocrypha.( ) the words are introduced by the statement that hegesippus records matters "as from unwritten jewish tradition," and then proceeds, "and { } not only he, but also irenæus and the whole body of the ancients, called the proverbs of solomon: all-virtuous wisdom." then follow the words, "and with regard to the _so-called_ apocrypha," &c, &c, evidently passing from the work just mentioned to the old testament apocrypha, several of which stand also in the name of solomon, and it is not improbable that amongst these were included the _ascensio esaiæ_ and the _apocalypsis eliæ_, to which is referred a passage which hegesippus, in a fragment preserved by photius,( ) strongly repudiates. as hegesippus does not, so far as we know, mention any canonical work of the new testament, but takes as his rule of faith the law, the prophets, and the words of the lord, probably as he finds them in the gospel according to the hebrews, quotes also jewish tradition and discusses the proverbs of solomon, the only possible conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive is that he spoke of old testament apocrypha. there cannot be a doubt that eusebius would have recorded his repudiation of new testament "apocrypha," regarding which he so carefully collects information, and his consequent recognition of new testament canonical works implied in such a distinction. we must now see how far in the fragments of the works of hegesippus which have been preserved to us there are references to assist our inquiry. in his account of certain surviving members of the family of jesus, who were brought before domitian, hegesippus says: "for domitian feared the appearing of the christ as much as herod."( ) it has been argued that this { } may be an allusion to the massacre of the children by herod related in matt ii., more especially as it is doubtful that the parallel account to that contained in the first two chapters of the first gospel existed in the oldest forms of the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) but the tradition which has been preserved in our first synoptic may have formed part of many other evangelical works, in one shape or another, and certainly cannot be claimed with reason exclusively for that gospel. this argument, therefore, has no weight whatever, and it obviously rests upon the vaguest conjecture. the principal passages which apologists( ) adduce as references to our gospels occur in the account which hegesippus gives of the martyrdom of james the just. the first of these is the reply which james is said to have given to the scribes and pharisees: "why do ye ask me concerning jesus the son of man? he sits in heaven on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."( ) this is compared with matt. xxvi. : "from this time ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven."( ) it is not necessary to point out the variations between these two passages, which are obvious. if we had not the direct intimation that hegesippus made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, which no doubt contained this passage, it would be apparent that a man who valued tradition { } so highly might well have derived this and other passages from that source. this is precisely one of those sayings which were most current in the early church, whose hope and courage were sustained amid persecution and suffering by such chiliastic expectations, with which according to the apostolic injunction they comforted each other.( ) in any case the words do not agree with the passage in the first gospel, and as we have already established, even perfect agreement would not under the circumstances be sufficient evidence that the quotation is from that gospel, and not from another; but with such discrepancy, without any evidence whatever that hegesippus knew anything of our gospels, but, on the contrary, with the knowledge that he made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, we must decide that any such passages must rather be derived from it than from our gospels. it is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase: "for we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons."( ) canon westcott points out that [--greek--] only occurs in luke xx. , and galatians ii. ;( ) but the similarity of this single phrase, which is not given as a quotation, but in a historical form put into the mouth of those who are addressing james, cannot for a moment be accepted as evidence of a knowledge of luke. the episode of the tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form of the gospel history, and although the other two synoptics( ) read [--greek--] for [--greek--], there is { } no ground for asserting that some of the [--greek--] who preceded luke did not use the latter form, and as little for asserting that it did not so stand, for instance, in the gospel according to the hebrews. the employment of the same expression in the epistle, moreover, at once deprives the gospel of any individuality in its use. hegesippus represents the dying james as kneeling down and praying for those who were stoning him: "i beseech (thee), lord god father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [--greek--].( ) this is compared with the prayer which luke( ) puts into the mouth of jesus on the cross: "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [--greek--], and it is assumed from this partial coincidence that hegesippus was acquainted with the third of our canonical gospels. we are surprised to see an able and accomplished critic like hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion without either examination or argument of any kind.( ) such a deduction is totally unwarranted by the facts of the case, and if the partial agreement of a passage in such a father with a historical expression in a gospel which, alone out of many previously existent, has come down to us can be considered evidence of the acquaintance of the father with that particular gospel, the function of criticism is at an end. it may here be observed that the above passage of luke xxiii. is omitted altogether from the vatican ms. and codex d (bezse), and in the codex sinaiticus { } its position is of a very doubtful character.( ) the codex alexandrinus which contains it omits the word [--greek--].( ) luke's gospel was avowedly composed after many other similar works were already in existence, and we know from our synoptics how closely such writings often followed each other, and drew from the same sources.( ) if any historical character is conceded to this prayer of jesus it is natural to suppose that it must have been given in at least some of these numerous gospels which have unfortunately perished. no one could reasonably assert that our third gospel is the only one which ever contained the passage. it would be preposterous to affirm, for instance, that it did not exist in the gospel according to the hebrews, which hegesippus employed. on the supposition that the passage is historical, which apologists at least will not dispute, what could be more natural or probable than that such a prayer, "emanating from the innermost soul of jesus,"( ) should have been adopted under similar circumstances by james his brother and successor, who certainly could not have derived it from luke. the tradition of such words, expressing so much of the original spirit of christianity, setting aside for the moment written { } gospels, could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the mind of the early church, and more especially in the primitive community amongst whom they were uttered, and of which hegesippus was himself a later member; and they would certainly have been treasured by one who was so careful a collector and transmitter of "the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching." no saying is more likely to have been preserved by tradition, both from its own character, brevity, and origin, and from the circumstances under which it was uttered, and there can be no reason for limiting it amongst written records to luke's gospel. the omission of the prayer from very important codices of luke further weakens the claim of that gospel to the passage. beyond these general considerations, however, there is the important and undoubted fact that the prayer which hegesippus represents james as uttering does not actually agree with the prayer of jesus in the third gospel. so far from proving the use of luke, therefore, this merely fragmentary and partial agreement, on the contrary, rather proves that he did not know that gospel, for on the supposition of his making use of the third synoptic at all for such a purpose, and not simply giving the prayer which james may in reality have uttered, why did he not quote the prayer as he actually found it in luke? we have still to consider a fragment of hegesippus preserved to us by stephanus gobarus, a learned monophysite of the sixth century, which reads as follows: "that the good things prepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered they into the heart of man. hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, how moved i know not, says in the fifth book of his memoirs that these words are vainly { } spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the lord saying: 'blessed are your eyes that see, and your cars that hear,'" &c. [--greek--].( ) we believe that we have here an expression of the strong prejudice against the apostle paul and his teaching which continued for so long to prevail amongst jewish christians, and which is apparent in many writings of that period.( ) the quotation of paul, corinthians ii. , differs materially from the septuagint version of the passage in isaiah lxiv. , and, as we have seen, the same passage quoted by "clement of rome,"( ) differs both from the version of the lxx'. and from the epistle, although closer to the former. jerome however found the passage in the apocryphal work called "ascensio isaiæ,"( ) and origen, jerome, and others likewise ascribe it to the "apocalypsis eliæ."( ) this, however, does not concern us here, and we have merely to examine the "saying of the lord," which hegesippus opposes to the passage: "blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that hear." this is compared with matt. xiii. , "but blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear" [--greek--], and also with luke x. , "blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see," &c. we need not point out that the saying referred to by hegesippus, whilst conveying the { } same sense as that in the two gospels, differs as materially from them both as they do from each other, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different though kindred source, like the gospel according to the hebrews, to do. the whole of the passages which we have examined, indeed, exhibit the same natural variation. we have already referred to the expressions of hegesippus regarding the heresies in the early church: "from these sprang the false christs, and false prophets, and _false apostles_ who divided the unity of the church by corrupting doctrines concerning god and his christ."( ) we have shown how this recalls quotations in justin of sayings of jesus foreign to our gospels, in common with similar expressions in the clementine homilies,( ) apostolic constitutions,( ) and clementine recognitions,( ) and we need not discuss the matter further. this community of reference, in a circle known to have made use of the gospel according to the hebrews, to matters foreign to our synoptics, furnishes collateral illustration of the influence of that gospel. tischendorf, who so eagerly searches for every trace, real or imaginary, of the use of our gospels and of the existence of a new testament canon, passes over in silence, with the exception of a short note( ) devoted to the denial that hegesippus was opposed to paul, this first writer of christian church history, whose evidence, could it have been adduced, would have been so valuable. he does not pretend that hegesippus made use of the canonical gospels, or knew of any other holy scriptures { } than those of the old testament, but, on the other hand, he does not mention that he possessed, and quoted from, the gospel according to the hebrews. there is no reason for supposing that hegesippus found a new testament canon in any of the christian communities which he visited, and such a rule of faith certainly did not yet exist in rome in a.d. - .( ) there is no evidence whatever to show that hegesippus recognized any other evangelical work than the gospel according to the hebrews, as the written source of his knowledge of the words of the lord.( ) . the testimony of papias is of great interest and importance in connection with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer who mentions the tradition that matthew and mark composed written records of the life and teaching of jesus; but no question has been more continuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which he refers with our actual canonical gospels. papias was bishop of hierapolis, in phrygia,( ) in the first half of the second century, and is said to have suffered martyrdom under marcus aurelius about a.d. - .( ) about the middle of the second century( ) he wrote a work in five books, entitled { } "exposition of the lord's oracles "(l) [--greek--], which, with the exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by eusebius and irenæus, is unfortunately, no longer extant. in the preface to his book he stated: "but i shall not hesitate also to set beside my interpretations all that i rightly learnt from the presbyters, and rightly remembered, earnestly testifying to their truth. for i was not, like the multitude, taking pleasure in those who speak much, but in those who teach the truth, nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in those who record those delivered by the lord to the faith, and which come from the truth itself. if it happened that any one came who had followed the presbyters, i inquired minutely after the words of the presbyters, what andrew or what peter said, or what philip or what thomas or james, or what john or matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the lord, and what aristion and the presbyter john, the disciples of the lord, say, for i held that what was to be derived from books did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice"( ). [--greek--] it is clear from this that papias preferred tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted, that he attached little or { } no value to any gospels with which he had met,( ) and that he knew absolutely nothing of canonical scriptures of the new testament.( ) his work was evidently intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of jesus completed from oral tradition, with his own expositions, and this is plainly indicated both by his own words, and by the statements of eusebius who, amongst other things, mentions that papias sets forth strange parables of the saviour and teachings of his from unwritten tradition [--greek--].( ) it is not, however, necessary to discuss more closely the nature of the work, for there is no doubt that written collections of discourses of jesus existed before it was composed of which it is probable he made use. the most interesting part of the work of papias which is preserved to us is that relating to matthew and with reference to the last sentence of papias, teschendorf asks: "what books does he refer to here, perhaps our gospels ? according to the expression this is not impossible, but from the whole character of the book in the highest degree improbable." (wann wurden, u. s. w.t p. .) we know little or nothing of the "whole character" of the book, and what we do know is contradictory to our gospels. the natural and only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration of papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief. { } mark. after stating that papias had inserted in his book accounts of jesus given by aristion, of whom nothing is known, and by the presbyter john, eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding mark communicated by the latter. there has been much controversy as to the identity of the presbyter john, some affirming him to have been the apostle,( ) but the great majority of critics deciding that he was a totally different person.( ) irenseus, who, sharing the chiliastic opinions of papias, held him in high respect, boldly calls him "the hearer of john" (meaning the apostle) "and a companion of polycarp" [--greek--]( ) but this is expressly contradicted by eusebius, who points out that, in the preface to his book, papias by no means asserts that he was himself a hearer of the apostles, but merely that he received their doctrines from those who had personally known them;( ) and after making the quotation from papias which we have given { } above, he goes on to point out that the name of john is twice mentioned, once together with peter, james, and matthew, and the other apostles, "evidently the evangelist," and the other john he mentions separately, ranking him amongst those who are not apostles, and placing aristion before him, distinguishing him clearly by the name of presbyter.( ) he further refers to the statement of the great bishop of alexandria, dionysius,( ) that at ephesus there were two tombs, each bearing the name of john, thereby leading to the inference that there were two men of the name.( ) there can be no doubt that papias himself in the passage quoted mentions two persons of the name of john, distinguishing the one from the other, and classing the one amongst the apostles and the other after aristion, an unknown "disciple of the lord," and, but for the phrase of irenæus, so characteristically uncritical and assumptive, there probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning of the passage. the question is not of importance to us, and we may leave it, with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom under marcus aurelius, c. a.d. , can scarcely have been a hearer of the apostles.( ) the account which the presbyter john is said to have { } given of mark's gospel is as follows: "'this also the presbyter said: mark having become the interpreter of peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by christ. for he neither heard the lord, nor followed him; but afterwards, as i said,( ) accompanied peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the lord's oracles. mark, therefore, committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. for of one point he was careful, to omit none of the things which he heard, and not to narrate any of them falsely.' these facts papias relates concerning mark."( ) the question to decide is, whether the work here described is our canonical gospel or not. the first point in this account is the statement that mark was the interpreter of peter [--greek--]. was he merely the secretary of the apostle writing in a manner from his dictation, or does the passage mean that he translated the aramaic narrative of peter into dr. lightfoot (contemp. bev., , p. ), in the course of a highly fanciful argument says, in reference to this "as i said": "it is quite clear that papias had already said something of the relations existing between st. peter and st mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the second gospel, for he there refers back to a preceding notice." it is quite clear that he refers back, but only to the preceding sentence in which he "had already said something of the relations" in stating the fact that: "mark, having become the interpreter of peter, wrote, &c." { } greek?( ) the former is the more probable supposition and that which is most generally adopted, but the question is not material here. the connection of peter with the gospel according to mark was generally affirmed in the early church, as was also that of paul with the third gospel,{ } with the evident purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all the canonical gospels.( ) irenæus says: "after their decease (peter and paul), mark the disciple and interpreter of peter delivered to, us in writing that which had been preached by peter."( ) eusebius quotes a similar tradition from clement of alexandria, embellished however with further particulars. he says: "... the cause for which the gospel according to mark was written was this: when peter had publicly preached the word at rome, and proclaimed the gospel by the spirit, those who were present being many, requested mark, as he had followed him from afar and remembered what he had said, to write down what he had spoken; and when he had composed the gospel, he gave it to those who had asked it of him; which when peter knew he neither absolutely hindered nor encouraged it*"( ) tertullian repeats the same tradition. he says: { } "and the gospel which mark published may be affirmed to be peter's, whose interpreter mark was.... for it may rightly appear that works which disciples publish are of their masters."(l) we have it again from origen: "the second (gospel) is according to mark, written as peter directed him."( ) eusebius gives a more detailed and advanced version of the same tradition. "so much, however, did the effulgence of piety illuminate the minds of those (romans) who heard peter, that it did not content them to hear but once, nor to receive only the unwritten doctrine of the divine teaching, but with reiterated entreaties they besought mark, to whom the gospel is ascribed, as the companion of peter, that he should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus orally conveyed. nor did they cease their entreaties until they had persuaded the man, and thus became the cause of the writing of the gospel called according to mark. they say, moreover, that the apostle (peter) having become aware, through revelation to him of the spirit, of what had been done, was delighted with the ardour of the men, and ratified the work in order that it might be read in the churches. this narrative is given by clement in the sixth book of his institutions, whose testimony is supported by that of papias, the bishop of hierapolis."( ) { } the account given by clement, however, by no means contained these details, as we have seen. in his "demonstration of the gospel" eusebius, referring to the same tradition, affirms that it was the modesty of peter which prevented his writing a gospel himself.( ) jerome almost repeats the preceding account of eusebius: "mark, the disciple and interpreter of peter, being entreated by the brethren of rome, wrote a short gospel according to what he had received from peter, which when peter heard, he approved, and gave his authority for its being read in the churches, as clement writes in the sixth book of his institutions,"( ) &c. jerome moreover says that peter had mark for an interpreter, "whose gospel was composed: peter narrating and he writing" (cujus evangelium petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est).( ) it is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations the tradition regarding the first two gospels which papias originated. irenæus dates the writing of mark after the death of peter and paul in rome. clement describes mark as writing during peter's life, the apostle preserving absolute neutrality. by the time of eusebius, however, the tradition has acquired new and miraculous elements and a more decided character--peter is made aware of the undertaking of mark through a revelation of the spirit, and instead of being neutral is delighted and lends the work the weight of his authority. eusebius refers to clement and papias as giving the same account, which they do { } not, however, and jerome merely repeats the story of eusebius without naming him, and the tradition which he had embellished thus becomes endorsed and perpetuated. such is the growth of tradition;(l) it is impossible to overlook the mythical character of the information we possess as to the origin of the second canonical gospel.( ) in a gospel so completely inspired by peter as the tradition of papias and of the early church indicates, we may reasonably expect to find unmistakable traces of petrine influence, but on examination it will be seen that these are totally wanting.( ) some of the early church did not fail to remark this singular discrepancy between the gospel and the tradition of its dependence on peter, and in reply eusebius adopts an apologetic tone.( ) for instance, in the brief account of the calling of simon in a similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as to the place in which the gospel was written, irenæus and others dating it from rome, and others (as chrysostom, in matth. homil., i.), assigning it to egypt. indeed some mss. of the second gospel have the words [--greek--] in accordance with this tradition as to its origin. cf. scholz, einl. n. t., i. p. . various critics have argued for its composition at rome, alexandria, and antioch. we do not go into the discussion as to whether peter ever was in rome. { } mark, the distinguishing addition: "called peter," of the first gospel is omitted,( ) and still more notably the whole narrative of the miraculous draught of fishes, which gives the event such prominence in the third gospel.( ) in matthew, jesus goes into the house of "peter" to cure his wife's mother of a fever, whilst in mark it is "into the house of simon and andrew," the less honourable name being still continued.( ) matthew commences the catalogue of the twelve by the pointed indication: "the first, simon, who is called peter,"( ) thus giving him precedence, whilst mark merely says: "and simon he surnamed peter."( ) the important episode of peter's walking on the sea, of the first gospel,( ) is altogether ignored by mark. the enthusiastic declaration of peter: "thou art the christ,"( ) is only followed by the chilling injunction to tell no one, in the second gospel,( ) whilst matthew not only gives greater prominence to the declaration of peter, but gives the reply of jesus: "blessed art thou, simon bar-jona," &c,--of which mark apparently knows nothing,--and then proceeds to the most important episode in the history of the apostle, the celebrated words by which the surname of peter was conferred upon him: "and i say unto thee, that thou art peter, and upon this rock will i build my church," &c.( ) the gospel supposed to be inspired by peter, however, totally omits this most important passage; as it also does the miracle of the finding the tribute money in the fish's mouth, narrated by the first gospel.( ) luke states that "peter { } and john "are sent to prepare the passover, whilst mark has only "two disciples;"( ) and in the account of the last supper, luke gives the address of jesus to peter: "simon, simon, behold satan hath desired to have you (all) that he may sift you as wheat; but i have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."( ) of this mark does not say a word. again, after the denial, luke reads: "and the lord turned and looked upon peter, and peter remembered the word of the lord, &c, and peter went out and wept bitterly;"( ) whereas mark omits the reproachful look of jesus, and makes the penitence of peter depend merely on the second crowing of the cock, and further modifies the penitence by the omission of "bitterl"--" and when he thought thereon he wept."( ) there are other instances to which we need not refer. not only are some of the most important episodes in which peter is represented by the other gospels as a principal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of petrine influence and teaching. the argument that these omissions are due to the modesty of peter is quite untenable, for not only does irenæus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this gospel was only written after the death of peter,( ) but also there is no modesty in omitting passages of importance in the history of jesus, simply because peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for instance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial { } of his master, which could not but have filled a sad place in the apostle's memory. on the other hand, there is no adequate record of special matter, which the intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of jesus possessed by peter might have supplied, to counterbalance the singular omissions. there is infinitely more of the spirit of peter in the first gospel than there is in the second. the whole internal evidence, therefore, shows that this part of the tradition of the presbyter john transmitted by papias does not apply to our gospel. the discrepancy, however, is still more marked when we compare with our actual second gospel the account of the work of mark which papias received from the presbyter. mark wrote down from memory some parts [--greek--] of the teaching of peter regarding the life of jesus, but as peter adapted his instructions to the actual circumstances [--greek--], and did not give a consecutive report [--greek--] of the sayings or doings of jesus, mark was only careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself to arrange in historical order [--greek--] his narrative of the things which were said and done by jesus, but merely wrote down facts as he remembered them. this description would lead us to expect a work composed of fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of peter, without regular sequence or connection. the absence of orderly arrangement is the most prominent feature in the description, and forms the burden of the whole. mark writes "what he remembered;" "he did not arrange in order the things that were either said or done by christ;" and then follow the apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer or follower of the lord, but derived his { } information from the occasional preaching of peter, who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative. now it is impossible in the work of mark here described to recognize our present second gospel, which does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident character of orderly arrangement each of the synoptics compared with the other two would present a similar degree of variation, but none of them could justly be described as not arranged in order or as not being consecutive. the second gospel opens formally, and after presenting john the baptist as the messenger sent to prepare the way of the lord, proceeds to the baptism of jesus, his temptation, his entry upon public life, and his calling of the disciples. then, after a consecutive narrative of his teaching and works, the history ends with a full and consecutive account of the last events in the life of jesus, his trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, there is in the gospel every characteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement, from the striking introduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the solemn close of the marvellous history.( ) the great majority of critics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the presbyter john recorded by papias does not apply to our second canonical gospel at all.( ) many { } of those who affirm that the description of papias may apply to our second gospel( ) do so with hesitation, and few maintain that we now possess the original work without considerable subsequent alteration. some of these critics, however, feeling the difficulty of identifying our second gospel with the work here described, endeavour { } to reconcile the discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the account of papias. they suggest that the first part, in which the want of chronological order is pointed out, refers to the rough notes which mark made during the actual preaching and lifetime of peter, and that the latter part applies to our present gospel, which he later remodelled into its present shape.( ) this most unreasonable and arbitrary application of the words of papias is denounced even by apologists.( ) it has been well argued that the work here described as produced by mark in the character of [--greek--] is much more one of the same family as the clementine homilies than of our gospels.( ) the work was no systematic narrative of the history of jesus, nor report of his teaching, but the dogmatic preaching of the apostle, illustrated and interspersed with passages from the discourses of jesus or facts from his life.( ) of this character seems actually to have been that ancient work "the preaching of peter" [--greek--], which was used by heracleon,( ) and by clement( ) of alexandria as an authentic canonical work,( ) denounced by origen( ) { } on account of the consideration in which it was held by-many, but still quoted with respect by gregory of nazianzum.( ) there can be no doubt that the [--greek--] although it failed to obtain a permanent place in the canon, was one of the most ancient works of the christian church, dating probably from the first century, from which indeed the clementine homilies themselves were in all likelihood produced,( ) and, like the work described by papias, it also was held to have been composed in rome in connection with the preaching there of peter and paul. it must be noted, moreover, that papias does not call the work ascribed to mark a gospel, but merely a record of the preaching of peter. it is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work referred to by the presbyter john disappeared, and the present gospel according to mark became substituted for it. the merely negative evidence that our actual gospel is not the work described by papias is sufficient for our purpose. any one acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers, and with the literary history of the early christian church, will readily conceive the facility with which this can have been accomplished. the great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our synoptic gospels have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. these changes have not been effected without traces { } being left by which the various materials may be separated and distinguished, but the more primitive gospels have entirely disappeared, naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. the critic, however, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals, or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive gospel. teschendorf asks: "how then has neither eusebius nor any other theologian of christian antiquity thought that the expressions of papias were in contradiction with the two gospels (mt. and mk.)?"( ) the absolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction, however childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their unquestioning application of the tradition of papias to our gospels anything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an argument. we have already in the course of these pages seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of the fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances of the absurdities with which their writings abound. no fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. no period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. the name of every apostle, or christian teacher, not excepting that of the great master himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery. false gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously { } circulated, and such pious falsification was not even intended or regarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. it was only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, whilst spurious ones usurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism. the fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have been of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is of no critical value.( ) in an age-when the multiplication of copies of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility the more complete and artistic gospel could take the place of the original notes as the work of mark. the account given by papias of the work ascribed to matthew is as follows: "matthew composed the oracles in the hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able."( ) critics are divided in opinion as to whether this tradition was, like that regarding mark, derived from the presbyter john,( ) or is given merely on canon westcott himself admits that "the proof of the canon is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of the first two centuries." he says: "the spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical." on the canon, p. f. { } the authority of papias himself.( ) eusebius joins the account of mark to that given by matthew merely by the following words: "these facts papias relates concerning mark; but regarding matthew he has said as follows:"( ) eusebius distinctly states that the account regarding mark is derived from the presbyter, and the only reason for ascribing to him also that concerning matthew is that it is not excluded by the phraseology of eusebius, and the two passages being given by him consecutively--however they may have stood in the work of papias--it is reasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived from the same source. the point is not of much importance, but it is clear that there is no absolute right to trace this statement to the presbyter john, as there is in the case of the tradition about mark. this passage has excited even more controversy than that regarding mark, and its interpretation and application are still keenly debated. the intricacy and difficulty of the questions which it raises are freely admitted by some of the most earnest defenders of the canonical gospels, but the problem, so far as our examination is concerned, can be solved without much trouble. the dilemma in which apologists find themselves when they attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by papias to our canonical gospel is the great difficulty which complicates the matter and prevents a { } clear and distinct solution of the question. we shall avoid minute discussion of details, contenting ourselves with the broader features of the argument, and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the bearing of the evidence of papias upon the claim to authenticity of our canonical gospel. the first point which we have to consider is the nature of the work which is here described. matthew is said to have composed the [--greek--] or oracles, and there can be little doubt from the title of his own book: "exposition of the lord's oracles" [--greek--], that these oracles referred to by papias were the discourses of jesus. does the word xoyta, however, mean strictly oracles or discourses alone, or does it include within its fair signification also historical narrative? "were the "xoyta" here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of jesus, or a complete gospel like that in our canon bearing the name of matthew? that the natural interpretation of the word is merely "oracles" is indirectly admitted, even by the most thorough apologists, when they confess the obscurity of the expression--obscurity, however, which simply appears to exist from the difficulty of straining the word to make it apply to the gospel. "in these sentences," says tischendorf, referring to the passage about matthew, "there is much obscurity; for instance, it is doubtful whether we have rightly translated 'discourses of the lord,'" and he can only extend the meaning to include historical narrative by leaving the real meaning of the word and interpreting it by supposed analogy. there can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word xoyta anciently and at the time of papias was { } simply: words or oracles of a sacred character, and however much the signification became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings. there are many instances of this original and limited signification in the new testament;( ) and there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of jesus which were estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any reason for thinking that [--greek--] was here used in any other sense.( ) it is argued { } on the other hand, that in the preceding passage upon mark, a more extended meaning of the word is indicated. the presbyter john says that mark, as the interpreter of peter, wrote without order "the things which were either said or done by christ" ([--greek--]), and then, apologizing for him, he goes on to say that peter, whom he followed, adapted his teaching to the occasion, "and not as making a consecutive record of the oracles [--greek--] of the lord." here, it is said, the word [--greek--] is used in reference both to sayings and doings, and therefore in the passage on matthew [--greek--] must not be understood to mean only [--greek--], but also includes, as in the former case, the [--greek--]. for these and similar reasons,--in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these xoyta our actual gospel according to matthew--many critics have maintained that [--greek--] in this place may be understood to include historical narrative as well as discourses.( ) the arguments by which they arrive at this { } conclusion, however, seem to us to be based upon thorough misconception of the direct meaning of the passage. few or none of these critics would deny that the simple interpretation of [--greek--], at that period, was oracular sayings.( ) papias shows his preference for discourses in the very title of his lost book, "exposition of the [--greek--] of the lord," and in the account which he gives of the works attributed to mark and matthew, the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest. now, in the passage regarding mark, instead of [--greek--] being made the equivalent of [--greek--] and [--greek--], the very reverse is the fact. the presbyter says mark wrote what he remembered of the things which were said or done by christ, although not in order, and he apologizes for his doing this on the ground that he had not himself been a _hearer_ of the lord, but merely reported what he had heard from peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and did _not_ attempt to give a consecutive record of the oracles [--greek--] of the lord. mark, therefore, could not do so either. matthew, on the contrary, he states, did compose the oracles [--greek--]. there is an evident contrast made: mark { } wrote [--greek--] because he had not the means of writing the oracles, but matthew composed the [--greek--].( ) papias clearly distinguishes the work of mark, who had written reminiscences of what jesus had said and done, from that of matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses.( ) it is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work commencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of jesus, his genealogy, and the preaching of john the baptist, and concluding with an equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, and which relates all the miracles and has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration that messianic prophecy was fulfilled in jesus, could be entitled [--greek--]: the oracles or discourses of the lord.( ) partly for these, but also for other important reasons, some of which shall presently be referred to, the great majority of critics deny that the work described by papias can be the same as the gospel in our canon bearing the name of matthew.( ) whilst of those who { } suppose that the (aramaic) original of which papias speaks may have been substantially similar to it in construction, very few affirm that the work did not receive much subsequent manipulation, addition, and alteration, necessarily including translation, before it assumed the form in which the gospel now lies before us, and many of them altogether deny its actual apostolic origin.( ) the next most important and obvious point is that the work described in this passage was written by matthew { } in the hebrew or aramaic dialect, and each one who did not understand that dialect was obliged to translate as best he could. our gospel according to matthew, however, is in greek. tischendorf, who is obliged to acknowledge the greek originality of our actual gospel, and that it is not a translation from another language, recognizes the inevitable dilemma in which this fact places apologists, and has, with a few other critics, no better argument with which to meet it than the simple suggestion that papias must have been mistaken in saying that matthew wrote in hebrew.( ) just as much of the testimony as is convenient or favourable is eagerly claimed by such apologists, and the rest, which destroys its applicability to our gospel, is set aside as a mistake. tischendorf perceives the difficulty, but not having arguments to meet it, he takes refuge in feeling. "in this," he says, "there lies before us one of the most complicated questions, whose detailed treatment would here not be in place. for our part, we are fully at rest concerning it, in the conviction that the assumption by papias of a hebrew original text of matthew, which already in his time cannot have been limited to himself and was soon repeated by other men, arises only from a misunderstanding."( ) it is difficult to comprehend why it should be considered out of place in a work specially written to establish the authenticity of the gospels to discuss fully so vital a point, and its deliberate evasion in such a manner alone can be deemed out of place on such an occasion.( ) { } we may here briefly remark that teschendorf and others( ) repeat with approval the disparaging expressions against papias which eusebius, for dogmatic reasons, did not scruple to use, and in this way they seek somewhat to depreciate his testimony, or at least indirectly to warrant their free handling of it. it is true that eusebius says that papias was a man of very limited comprehension( ) [--greek--], but this is acknowledged to be on account of his millenarian opinions,( ) to which eusebius was vehemently opposed. it must be borne in mind, however, that the chiliastic passage from papias quoted by irenæus, and in which he certainly saw nothing foolish, is given on the authority of the presbyter john, to whom, and not to papias, any criticism upon it must be referred. if the passage be not of a very elevated character, it is quite in the spirit of that age. the main point, however, is that in regard to the testimony of papias we have little to { } do with his general ability, for all that was requisite was the power to see, hear, and accurately state very simple facts. he repeats what is told him by the presbyter, and in such matters we presume that the bishop of hierapolis must be admitted to have been competent.( ) there is no point, however, on which the testimony of the fathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of matthew was written in hebrew or aramaic. the first mention of any work ascribed to matthew occurs in the account communicated by papias, in which, as we have seen, it is distinctly said that matthew wrote "in the hebrew dialect." irenæus, the next writer who refers to the point, says: "matthew also produced a written gospel amongst the hebrews in their own dialect," and that he did not derive his information solely from papias may be inferred from his going on to state the epoch of matthew's writings: "when peter and paul were preaching and founding the church in rome."( ) the evidence furnished by pantænus is certainly independent of papias. eusebius states with regard to him: "of these pantænus is said to have been one, and to have penetrated as far as india (southern arabia), where it is reported that he found the gospel according to matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of christ, to whom bartholomew, one of the apostles, as it is said, had preached, and left them that writing of matthew in hebrew letters" [--greek--] { } [--greek--].( ) jerome gives a still more circumstantial account of this. "pantaenus found that bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had there (in india) preached the advent of our lord jesus christ according to the gospel of matthew, which was written in hebrew letters (quod hebraicis uteris scriptum), and which on returning to alexandria he brought with him."( ) it is quite clear that this was no version specially made by bartholomew, for had he translated the gospel according to matthew from the greek, for the use of persons in arabia, he certainly would not have done so into hebrew.( ) origen, according to eusebius, "following the ecclesiastical canon," states what he has understood from tradition [--greek--] of the gospels, and says: "the first written was that according to matthew, once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of jesus christ, who delivered it to the jewish believers, composed in the hebrew language."( ) eusebius in another place makes a similar statement in his own name: "matthew having first preached to the hebrews when he was about to go also to others, delivered to them his gospel written in their native language, and thus compensated those from whom he was departing for the want of his presence by the writing."( ) cyril of jerusalem says: "matthew, who wrote the gospel, wrote it in the hebrew language."( ) epiphanius, referring to the fact that the nazarenes called the only gospel which they { } recognized the "gospel according to the hebrews," continues: "as in very truth we can affirm that matthew alone in the new testament set forth and proclaimed the gospel in the hebrew language and in hebrew characters;"( ) and elsewhere he states that "matthew wrote the gospel in hebrew."( ) the same tradition is repeated by chrysostom,( ) augustine,( ) and others. whilst the testimony of the fathers was thus unanimous as to the fact that the gospel ascribed to matthew was originally written in hebrew, no question ever seems to have arisen in their minds as to the character of the greek version; much less was any examination made with the view of testing the accuracy of the translation. "such inquiries were not in the spirit of christian learned men generally of that time,"( ) as tischendorf remarks in connection with the belief current in the early church, and afterwards shared by jerome, that the gospel according to the hebrews was the original of the greek gospel according to matthew. the first who directly refers to the point, frankly confessing the total ignorance which generally prevailed, was jerome. he states: "matthew, who was also called levi, who from a publican became an apostle, was the first who wrote a gospel of christ in judæa in hebrew language and letters, on account of those from amongst the circumcision who had believed; but who afterwards translated it into greek is not { } sufficiently certain."( ) it was only at a much later period, when doubt began to arise, that the translation was wildly ascribed to the apostles john, james, and others.( ) the expression in papias that "everyone interpreted them (the [--greek--]) as he was able" [--greek--] has been variously interpreted by different critics, like the rest of the account. schleier-macher explained the [--greek--] as translation by enlargement: matthew merely collected the xoyta ([--greek--]), and everyone added the explanatory circumstances of time and occasion as best he could.( ) this view, however, has not been largely adopted. others consider that the expression refers to the interpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings of christians for worship,( ) but there can be no doubt that, coming after the statement that the work was written in the hebrew dialect, [--greek--] can only mean simple translation.( ) some maintain that the passage infers the existence of many written translations, amongst which very probably was ours;( ) whilst others affirm that the phrase merely signifies that as there was no recognized { } translation, each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the language, yet wished to read the work, translated the hebrew for himself orally as best he could.( ) some consider that papias or the presbyter use the verb in the past tense, [--greek--], as contrasting the time when it was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer necessary for them to do so;( ) whilst others deny that any written translation of an authentic character was known to papias at all.( ) now the words in papias are merely: "matthew composed the xoyta in the hebrew dialect,( ) and everyone interpreted them as he was able." the statement is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that when the work was composed, translation was requisite, and as each one translated "as he was able," that no recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. there is no contrast either necessarily or, we think, probably implied in the use of the past tense. the composition of the xoyta being of course referred to in the in connection with this it may be of interest to remember that, in the account of his conversion and the vision which he saw on his way to damascus which paul gives to king agrippa in the acts of the apostles, he states that jesus spoke to him "in the hebrew dialect" [--greek--], acts xxvi. . { } past tense, the same tense is simply continued in completing the sentence. the purpose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was composed in the hebrew language. but even if it be taken that papias intentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when translations did not exist, nothing is gained, papias may have known of many translations, but there is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion that papias was acquainted with an authentic greek version, although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of some greek translations of no authority. the words used, however, imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them. thus the account of papias, supported by the perfectly unanimous testimony of the fathers, declares that the work composed by matthew was written in the hebrew or aramaic dialect. the only evidence which asserts that matthew wrote any work at all, distinctly asserts that he wrote it in hebrew. it is quite impossible to separate the statement of the authorship from the language. the two points are so indissolubly united that they stand or fall together. if it be denied that matthew wrote in hebrew, it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all. it is therefore perfectly certain from this testimony that matthew cannot be declared the direct author of the greek canonical gospel bearing his name.( ) at the very best it can only be a translation, by an unknown hand, of a work the original of which was early lost. none of the earlier fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how, when, or by whom the translation was effected. jerome explicitly states that the translator of the work was unknown. the { } deduction is clear: our greek gospel, in so far as it is associated with matthew at all, cannot at the utmost be more than a translation, but as the work of an unknown translator, there cannot, in the absence of the original, or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy, bo any assurance that the translation faithfully renders the work of matthew, or accurately conveys the sense of the original. all its apostolical authority is gone. even michaelis long ago recognized this: "if the original text of matthew be lost, and we have nothing but a greek translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words: yea, it is possible that in various places the true meaning of the apostle has been missed by the translator."( ) this was felt and argued by the manicheans in the fourth century,( ) and by the anabaptists at the time of the reformation.( ) a wide argument might be opened out as to the dependence of the other two gospels on this unauthenticated work. the dilemma, however, is not yet complete. it was early remarked that our first canonical gospel bore no real marks of being a translation at all, but is evidently an original independent greek work. even men like erasmus, calvin, cajctan, and oecolampadius, began to deny the statement that our gospels showed any traces of hebrew origin, and the researches of later scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now maintain the primitive belief in a translation. we do not propose here to enter fully into this argument. it is sufficient to say that the great majority of competent critics declare that our first canonical gospel is no translation, but an { } original greek text;( ) whilst of those who consider that they find traces of translation and of hebrew origin, { } some barely deny the independent originality of the greek gospel, and few assert more than substantial agreement with the original, with more or less variation and addition often of a very decided character.( ) the case, therefore, stands thus: the whole of the evidence which warrants our believing that matthew wrote any { } work at all, distinctly, invariably, and emphatically asserts that he wrote that work in hebrew or aramaic; a greek gospel, therefore, as connected with matthew, can only be a translation by an unknown hand, whose accuracy we have not, and never have had, the means of verifying. our greek gospel, however, being an independent original greek text, there is no ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to matthew at all, the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed, and the gospel itself laying no claim, to such authorship. one or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first gospel, and either is absolutely fatal to its direct apostolic origin. neither as a translation from the hebrew nor as an original greek text can it claim apostolic authority. this has been so well recognized, if not admitted, that some writers, with greater zeal than discretion, have devised fanciful theories to obviate the difficulty. these maintain that matthew himself wrote both in hebrew and in greek,( ) or at least that the translation was made during his own lifetime and under his own eye,( ) and so on. there is not, however, a particle of evidence for any of these assertions, which { } are merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of embarrassed apologists. it is manifest that upon this evidence both those who assert the hebrew original of matthew's work and those who maintain that our gospel is not a translation but an original greek composition, should logically deny its apostolicity. we need not say that this is not done, and that for dogmatic and other foregone conclusions many profess belief in the apostolic authorship of the gospel, although in doing so they wilfully ignore the facts, and in many cases merely claim a substantial but not absolute apostolic origin for the work.( ) a much greater number of the most able and learned critics, however, both from external and internal evidence deny the apostolic origin of our first canonical gospel.( ) { } there is another fact to which we may briefly refer, which from another side shows that the work of matthew { } with which papias was acquainted was different from our gospel. in a fragment from the fourth book of his lost work which is preserved to us by oecumenius and theophylact, papias relates the circumstances of the death of judas iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction to the account in the first gospel. in matthew xxvii. , the death of the traitor is thus related: "and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself."( ) the narrative in papias is as follows: "judas walked about in this world a great example of impiety; for his body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a waggon was moving on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the waggon and his bowels gushed out."( ) theophylact, in connection with this passage, adds other details also apparently taken from the work of papias, as for instance that, from his excessive corpulency, the eyes of judas were so swollen that they could not see, and so sunk in his head that they could not be perceived even by the aid of the optical instruments of physicians; and that the rest of his body was covered with running sores and maggots, and so on in the manner of the early christian ages, whose imagination conjured up the wildest "special { } providences" to punish the enemies of the faith.( ) as papias expressly states that he eagerly inquired what the apostles, and amongst them what matthew, said, we may conclude that he would not have deliberately contradicted the account given by that apostle had he been acquainted with any work attributed to him which contained it.( ) it has been argued, from some very remote and imaginary resemblance between the passage from the preface to the work of papias quoted by eusebius with the prologue to luke, that papias was acquainted with that gospel;( ) but nothing could be more groundless than such a conclusion based upon such evidence, and there is not a word in our fragments of papias which warrants such an assertion.( ) eusebius, who never fails to state what the fathers say about the works of the new testament, does not mention that papias knew either the third or fourth gospels. is it possible to suppose that if papias had been acquainted with those gospels he would not have asked for information about them from the presbyters, or that eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that regarding the works ascribed to matthew and mark? eusebius states, however, that papias "made use of testimonies from the first epistle of john and, likewise, from that of peter."( ) as eusebius, { } however, does not quote the passages from papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from these epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. andrew, a cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, mentions that papias, amongst others of the fathers, considered the apocalypse inspired.( ) no reference is made to this by eusebius, but although from his millenarian tendencies it is very probable that papias regarded the apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book, this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value. we find, however, that papias, like hegesippus and others of the fathers, was acquainted with the gospel according to the hebrews.( ) eusebius says: "he (papias) has likewise related another history of a woman accused of many sins before the lord, which is contained in the gospel according to the hebrews."( ) this is generally believed to be the episode inserted in the later mss. of the fourth gospel, viii. -- . whatever books papias knew, however, it is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more beneficial source of information regarding evangelical history. "for i held that what was to be derived from { } books," he says, "did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice."( ) if, therefore, it could even have been shown that papias was acquainted with any of our canonical gospels, it must at the same time have been admitted that he did not recognize them as authoritative documents. it is manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that papias did not know our gospels. it is not possible that he could have found it better to inquire "what john or matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the lord... say" if he had known of gospels such as ours, and believed them to have been actually written by those apostles, deliberately telling him what they had to say. the work of matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere collection of discourses of jesus, he might naturally inquire what the apostle( ) himself said of the history and teaching of the master. the evidence of papias is in every respect most important. he is the first writer who mentions that matthew and mark were believed to have written any works at all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to the works attributed to them, his description of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing force against the pretensions made on behalf of our gospels to apostolic origin and authenticity. we may merely remark that papias does not call the matthew who wrote the[--greek--] an apostle. in this passage he speaks of the apostle, but he does not distinctly identify him with the matthew of the other passage. end of vol. i.